Inclusive Church blog

Programme 2009

2008-12-18T11:43:00.002Z

Our programme for 2009 is a great mix of IC introductory roadshows round the country, events on specific topics - inclusive language, including black and minority ethnic people, LGBT issues .. and our next residential conference in October -

For further information or to book a place on any of these contact us
or telephone Revd Clare Herbert, National Coordinator for Inclusive Church 07504 577210

Wednesday 14th January, 7.30pm
St Agnes Church, MANCHESTER
“All of us – An Inclusive Church Road Show”
Special speaker and theme – Dean Rogers Govender
“How can IC respond to the needs and aspirations of black people in the Church?”
(further information below)

Saturday 7th February , 11.00am – 4.00pm
St Peter’s Church Liverpool Grove, LONDON SE17 2HH
Day Conference on Inclusive Language,
“What Shall We Say?”
This day conference will tackle the importance of inclusive language while asking
the practical question – how to integrate its use in parish life?
With Lucy Winkett, Steven Shakespeare, June Boyce-Tillman, Elizabeth Baxter
Email herbert.clare@googlemail.com for booking details
(further information below)

Saturday 14th February
Centre for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality AGM
Revd Clare Herbert – keynote address
“Gather us in – Inclusive Sexual Ethics and Pastoral Care”

Sunday March 1st at 6.00pm
Dorchester Abbey, OXFORDSHIRE
“How do we read the Bible?” with David Winter and Giles Goddard

Weds March 4th at 6.30pm
St George’s, Jesmond, NEWCASTLE
Inclusive Church Road Show

March 20th and 21st
Old St Paul’s Church, EDINBURGH
Inclusive Church Reception and Road Show

Thursday 2nd April, at 1.00pm
LIVERPOOL Parish Church
Lenten Lecture – Revd Canon Giles Goddard

Thursday April 23rd 2.00pm – 5.30pm
St Martin- in - the Fields LONDON on St George’s Day
“Being black in Britain - what does it take to succeed?”
Overcoming barriers in society and church to success for black and minority ethnic people
An afternoon conference hosted by the Association of Black Clergy
Supported by Inclusive Church

May (date tba)
All Saints' Church NOTTINGHAM
“All of Us - Inclusive Church Road Show”

Saturday 13th June
Church of the Resurrection, Churchway, MACCLESFIELD
“All of Us - Inclusive Church Road Show”

Saturday July 4th
St Bride’s Church LIVERPOOL (or Liverpool Cathedral venue tba)
“All of Us - Inclusive Church Road Show”
Special theme – the LGBT agenda

Saturday August 1st
BATH
Inclusive Church Road Show

August 29th – 31st
Inclusive Church at GREENBELT

September 12th
Inclusive Church “IC the Future” Anniversary Walk, LONDON

Monday October 5th – Wednesday October 7th
Swanwick, DERBYSHIRE, the Hayes Centre
Second National Residential Conference
“WORD ON THE STREET” – the Bible in our faith and life
Further information to follow - bookings open February 2009

Friday 20th November
SHELDON, Devon
Revd Clare Herbert presents the Inclusive Church Road Show at the “Friday Fringe”
The Society of Martha and Mary, Sheldon

January / February 2010
BIRMINGHAM
“Consuming Passions”
Reflecting Responsibly on the Sexual Journey
An Inclusive Church Day Conference
Supported by The Centre for the Study of Christianity and Sexuality

All of us

2008-11-05T11:51:00.001Z

ALL OF US - the Inclusive Church Roadshow

If you would like to hear more about the work of Inclusive Church, its foundation in the inclusive spirit of the Anglican tradition, then this is for you.

Thursday 4th December
St Paul’s Church, Gloucester
6:30 – 9:00p.m.

6.30pm - Giles Goddard and Clare Herbert will present their understanding of the origins of Inclusive Church and its importance within the Anglican Tradition.

7.30pm - Celebrate over an Indian meal!

8.15pm - Clare and Giles present the ongoing work of Inclusive Church and answer questions.

9.00pm – prayers and home.

All Welcome

To book a place e-mail Adrian Slade on glossr@star.co.uk or phone 01242 253162. This event is free, and a retiring collection will be taken to cover costs.

A Space for Grace or a vacuum of liberal clemency?

2008-10-02T09:17:00.002+01:00

Contributed by Hugh Alford

When Jesus went cruising down by the quayside among those rough and hunky fisherman to groom for disciples he only came across men. This fact however clearly tells us little about our Lord’s choice of recruitment assessment centre, his preferred psychometric job profiling methodology or the gender selection imperatives of the person profile for his new priesthood.

Try as I might, I have just “not got it” when it comes to why a woman called to the priesthood is not to be respected , loved ,protected and where necessary obeyed.. For those are the duties of care we laity must give to our priests.

There is not total equality for women in the world of work but there are at least laws to fight corporate prejudice against women and gay people – thank God. Yet misogyny and homophobia are endorsed in the immunity granted the Church of England in their recruitment.

Some may feel the last five years we have been treading water but if that is the case we have not noticed the tide has been against our swimming strokes. We have been under the illusion of progress. To the observers outside the Church on land, we look as if we are going backwards. This is not say that Inclusive Church has in any way failed but maybe it is time to be more direct. The road shows are evidence of this but maybe we need to be more radical.

I know Bishop Gene Robinson told us to trust and keep holding onto hope a few weeks ago at St Mary’s Putney but consider what has happened over the last five years from a lay person’s perspective?.

Priests who wanted to be open about their relationships through a civil partnership have been sacked from the London Diocese. An Openly Gay Bishop was not invited to the Lambeth Conference hardly the actions of an inclusive church. Some appalling homophobic attacks have continued to take place with bishops just sitting on their hands.

Talented women priests continually encounter an employment ceiling of impenetrable Episcopal misogyny.

Bishops bless luxury cruise liners, pets. but can’t find it within themselves to offer Christian love to bless God’s created Gay peoples or women priests and reward talent. God’s superfluity of diversity is not considered to be holy it seems..

Outbreak of peace?

2008-07-15T20:05:00.001+01:00

The following Press Release was issued by Inclusive Church today.

Inclusive Church is hoping that the Lambeth Conference will witness an outbreak of peace in the Anglican Communion. IC has organised two events for the Lambeth Conference

“Strangers to Friends” - the IC Network Eucharist. 17 groups will come together to celebrate the peace we know in Christ, having worked together all year. All are welcome. Saturday 26th July: 7pm, Keynes Lecture Theatre. President – Rt Revd Carlos Touché-Porter, Archbishop of Mexico and a Primate of the Anglican Communion. Preacher – Canon Lucy Winkett, St Paul’s Cathedral.

“Inclusive Imperative – Anglican Welcome” Revd Dr Richard Burridge, Dean of King’s College London and Ms Nomfundo Walaza from Cape Town, SA will speak on “Using the New Testament now in peace-making and conflict resolution.” All are welcome. Thursday 31st July, 6.30 pm, Darwin Suite 1.

Canon Giles Goddard, Chair of IC, said “The conference has been planned as a chance for people to meet and talk. That’s it. As a church we have to work out new ways of living together. It’s not a time for point scoring or arguing but for engaging and listening.”

IC welcomes the acknowledgement by the Archbishop of Wales on Sunday that he would, if agreed by the Church in Wales, consecrate a gay bishop in a relationship. The first Lambeth Conference was born out of controversy, and focused on unity as a way forward. The reality of Anglican welcome means that the issues which face us are here to stay.

For further information contact;
Revd Canon Giles Goddard: 07762 373 674 office@inclusivechurch.net
Revd Clare Herbert: 07504 577 210 herbert.clare@googlemail.com
Or visit www.inclusivechurch.net

Information for editors: InclusiveChurch is a network of organisations and individuals who come from differing traditions and locations but are united in one aim; to celebrate and maintain the traditional inclusivity of the Anglican Communion.

The vote for women bishops

2008-07-14T22:54:00.002+01:00

This is a press release from Inclusive Church. Your blogger apologizes for the delay in posting it here.

Inclusive Church is delighted that General Synod voted by a large majority to move to the consecration of women as bishops.

Canon Giles Goddard, Chair of IC, said “It is a time for rejoicing. We have reached another milestone in the long process of removing the barriers to inclusion in the Church of England. The gospel is a gospel of welcome and this decision will make us more able to be welcoming in our churches. “

Inclusive Church includes many catholics, liberals and evangelicals among our supporters, who have recognised that a national code of practice is the best way forward. Through a code of practice, the concerns of those who do not yet accept the ministry of women can be recognised, but there will not be “no go areas” for women. It has worked in other provinces and no doubt it will work in England.

Although the response of some of our ecumenical partners has been negative, we have no doubt that many members of other churches will welcome the decision.

We pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit as the Church of England continues to try to fulfil its role as the Established Church. There is still a great deal of work to do to complete the process. We look forward to working with our partners and, we hope, with those who are opposed to the decision. We hope that helpful past dialogues can be revitalised to make sure that the legislation and the code of practice are as effective as they can be.

GAFCON and the Anglican Communion

2008-07-03T02:56:00.002+01:00

The “Statement on the Global Anglican Future” released after the GAFCON conference in Jerusalem shows once again how deeply many people misunderstand the nature and spirit of Anglicanism. It misrepresents loyal, orthodox, traditional Anglicans across the world who are working and praying, in the spirit of the Gospel, to bring about the reign of God on earth.

Anglicanism is is a dynamic, changing, growing and living faith which takes its authority from scripture, reason and tradition. It is unafraid to learn and receive anew the lessons of God’s unconditional love. The last century has taught us how we must make sure that there are no barriers to the welcome we offer to God’s house. Anglican Christians in the United States, Britain and across the world have applied those lessons and, in accordance with scripture, opened their doors to those previously shut out.

We welcome the response of the Archbishop of Canterbury to the GAFCON statement. The arbitrary creation of a “Primates’ Council” without legitimacy or authority cuts directly across the Anglican Instruments of Communion – the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates Meeting. The Statement represents, in sum and despite its denials, a schismatic document which seeks to re-form Anglicanism in a way which is without justification historically and ecclesiologically.

We regret the stumbling blocks which are created by the insistence on a narrow understanding of scriptural authority, especially for members of Anglican Churches in provinces whose leaders support the ideas of GAFCON. And those who break away from the Anglican Communion will still have the challenge of celebrating the diversity in God’s universe, and acknowledging the divine gifts bestowed on people who may be marginalised in some provinces – especially women and lesbian and gay people.

We are reminded of Matthew 11.16 – “To what shall I compare this generation? It is like children sitting in the market places and calling to one another, “We played the flute for you and you did not dance; we wailed and you did not mourn.”

Above all we give thanks that the Spirit which leads us into all truth continues to inspire and refresh the Anglican Communion. We all have much to learn from each other, and we look forward to the Lambeth Conference. We pray that in humility and openness those who attend will grow in their understanding of the Gospel, of the Communion and of one another so that we can all be newly equipped to serve the God who calls each of us into God’s immeasurable love.

Church services and civil partnerships

2008-06-24T23:20:00.002+01:00

Inclusive Church today publishes a paper by the Revd Brian Lewis, a member of General Synod and of IC’s Executive Committee on the law in relation to services after Civil Partnerships. The paper demonstrates that under the laws of the Church of England – especially Canon B5 - clergy have far greater liberty in this area than is commonly thought. They are permitted to carry out services of prayer and dedication following a civil partnership so long as they are not deemed to be "Services of Blessing". The paper is at online at www.inclusivechurch.net.

Canon Giles Goddard, Chair of Inclusive Church, said "We very much welcome this long overdue clarification of the law. It makes the distinction between marriages and civil partnerships and sets out what is permissible within the terms of Canon B5. We hope it will be helpful for clergy wishing to provide public services which respond prayerfully and pastorally to the needs of their congregations.”

Revd Lewis makes the comparison with the Service of Prayer and Dedication following a Civil Wedding (popularly described as a "A Church Blessing"). In these services the individuals are blessed without the service becoming "a Service of Blessing".

Women, Communion and the Church

2008-04-03T17:50:00.002+01:00

A press release from Inclusive Church

Inclusive Church (IC) is disappointed by the Church in Wales' decision not to allow women to be bishops. But we are pleased that the Church in Wales resisted pressure for any arrangements which would have discriminated against women and which would have destroyed the unity and integrity of its episcopate.

Christina Rees, Chair of WATCH (Women and the Church) and member of IC’s Executive Committee said, “I applaud the leadership shown by Archbishop Barry Morgan and the Welsh bishops’ resolute decision not to compromise the principle of having women as bishops on the same basis as men are bishops.”

The vote on women bishops failed narrowly to get the required two-thirds majority in the house of clergy.

For IC, Revd. Dr Giles Fraser said: “People mustn’t get disheartened. This will go through. The Gospel points towards full inclusion and if that’s what the Gospel says, that’s what God wants. Therefore all will be well.”

Inclusive Church has prepared a statement celebrating the historic generosity of the Anglican Communion and calling for renewed unity among churches. Churches in agreement with the statement are asked to send an email to endorse@giftofcommunion.org listing the church’s name, parish, diocese and province.

It reads

As Christians, we believe that all people have been made in the image of God. We believe that God loves each and every person with an infinite, never-ending, unconditional love.

As members of the body of Christ, we acknowledge each person's unique and valuable contribution as we seek together to build up that body in love.

As members of the Anglican Communion, we celebrate the gift of our diversity and are committed to being a broad Church that accepts and welcomes difference. We acknowledge our need of God's forgiveness for the sins and failings which harm our shared witness in the world. We believe our unity is rooted in our baptism in Christ, and we will seek to maintain that unity through the grace of the Holy Spirit who lives and works in each one of us.

As the Lambeth Conference approaches - at a time of debate and discernment in our life together - we believe the best way forward will not include segregating or excluding those with whom we disagree.

This invitation is intended for churches, and not individuals and should have the agreement of Church Vestries or PCC’s. Questions or comments can be addressed to info@giftofcommunion.org.

For further information contact;

Revd Canon Giles Goddard: +44 7762 373 674
office@inclusivechurch.net

Or visit www.inclusivechurch.net

Gift of Communion

2008-03-28T01:26:00.003Z

Please ask your PCC or vestry to endorse the following statement. Instructions are included. Over on my personal blog, I wrote a bit about this.

Short version: we want to present a pile of endorsements to the bishops gathered at the Lambeth Conference, to show that there are many more Communion-friendly congregations than there are secessionists out there. This statement says that the Communion means more to your congregation than a good fight; it does not mean that you agree with any particular point of moral theology.

You can help the effort by encouraging your colleagues to get their vestries or PCCs to endorse this. Share this widely with lay and clerical church friends. Post it on websites and blogs. Stitch it onto the front of your mitre, if you're a bishop. Whatever it takes.

Celebrating the Gift of Communion In advance of the Lambeth Conference we invite parishes to give thanks for the gift of the Anglican Communion, and to affirm their commitment to its historic generosity. At a time of debate and discernment in our life together we believe the best way forward will not include segregating or excluding those with whom we disagree.

If your church is in agreement with the following statement, please send an email to endorse@giftofcommunion.org listing your name, parish, diocese and province. Please make sure you have the agreement of your parish council or vestry before signing, and note that this invitation is intended for churches, and not individuals. If you have any questions or comments please address them to info@giftofcommunion.org. Please circulate this message to friends and networks.

“As Christians, we believe that all people have been made in the image of God. We believe that God loves each and every person with an infinite, never-ending, unconditional love.

As members of the body of Christ, we acknowledge each person’s unique and valuable contribution as we seek together to build up that body in love.

As members of the Anglican Communion, we celebrate the gift of our diversity and are committed to being a broad Church that accepts and welcomes difference. We acknowledge our need of God’s forgiveness for the sins and failings which harm our shared witness in the world. We believe our unity is rooted in our baptism in Christ, and we will seek to maintain that unity through the grace of the Holy Spirit who lives and works in each one of us.”

Uganda clarifies, and a new blog is born

2008-02-19T02:24:00.003Z

Trying to understand the problems in the Anglican Communion can be confusing, on a good day. Some conservatives say the situation is not about homosexuality, but rather about authority. And then they flout the Bible and subvert authority. See, for example, the news coming out of Uganda.

I've written a bit about this over on my new blog, "Seven whole days." Here's the sample:

While some will rejoice to have these “troublemakers” gone, I believe our Communion will be diminished as another wound divides the Body of Christ... Many of us would say that there is an Anglican identity worth treasuring and preserving, as one distinct expression of the Christian faith. It is not, to be sure, an anything-goes faith, but it is a comprehensive faith, able to hold together diverse expressions. Uganda may not manifest this, but neighboring Tanzania is a marvelous tapestry of evangelical fervor and catholic beauty. If we move away from an Anglican identity to an exclusivist (”You must agree with me to be in communion with me”), then Christendom has lost a reconciling tradition, and that is regrettable.

Why am I linking to my own blog here? Well, this post marks a bit of a transition. I may post some things here, but this blog will likely morph into a blog of official announcements of Inclusive Church events, trips, activities, and occasional rants. Why the change?

When I attended "Drenched in Grace" last fall, I heard Jenny Te Paa clearly, especially when she identified "male bloggers" as one of the principal catalysts for our schism, or at least our failure to reconcile. After some reflection, it seemed that she's right.

I might be tempted to point a finger at places like Stand Firm, but the truth is that the left has managed to have an internal conversation on the blogs, stirring ourselves into a bunker mentality at times. At first, I considered withdrawing entirely from the blogosphere. While I've enjoyed blogging, I did not want to be another shrill voice in the cacophony of dissent now facing our Communion.

Then I reflected on the posts that I've enjoyed writing the most, and which have provoked the most positive reaction. These were quite often irenic posts, in which the crisis of the Communion is situated relative to the crises of parish life, or the lives within a parish.

So I've decided to largely forego this particular forum, which almost invites a response to every Cantuarian eyebrow twitch. Instead, I'll write mostly about things that matter to me in a more mundane sense. What's happening the parish? What seems interesting in the wider blogosphere? And what might be worth a good rant or a hearty laugh?

So keep your RSS reader pointed at this blog. And maybe add Seven whole days to your list.

Myth and reality

2008-02-15T04:33:00.001Z

This from Philip Chester and Giles Goddard in the United States, written February 7:

We’re just over half way through our visit to the US: we write this on a plane from Chicago to San Francisco. So far it’s been an excellent trip. We may have the record for the world’s most extended Holy Communion; we went to the Ash Wednesday liturgy in the morning in the monastery of the Cowley Fathers in Cambridge Massachusetts. We had to leave at the Peace to catch a plane to Chicago. We walked into the church of the Atonement that evening just as they were beginning the Eucharistic prayer so we were able to complete our communion. We're mercifully far away from all the talk about Sharia law and the Archbishop, and for once it's a relief to be able to focus on the Anglican Communion!

Meetings have been held with a wide range of people, from lay people in Rhode Island to the Canon to the Presiding Bishop, and from key people in Integrity and the Chicago Consultation to clergy in Manhattan. We’ve explained that we came to the USA mainly to listen to the experience of the Episcopal Church and to develop an understanding of its situation, and to help develop communication between it and the Church of England. It’s quite clear that there is a huge gulf of understanding between our churches; and yet, although there are many differences, the similarities are very profound. Anything we can do, as the Lambeth Conference approaches, to improve the relationship has to be a good thing.

Contrary to popular perception the Episcopal Church is in good heart, and maintaining a significant position in the USA as a church which is both broad and welcoming; which covers a wide churchmanship with big differences of opinion and yet is determined to stay together. Given the sort of coverage the secessionist dioceses and parishes get in the UK, it’s a remarkable thing to learn that out of around 7,200 congregations across the country less than 100 have sought to leave. And out of around 110 domestic Dioceses, only 2 are likely to seek to secede. We’re talking very small numbers, less than 2%. Many of the other parishes which might previously have wanted to leave are now recognising that to be part of a greater whole is valid and important, and real efforts are being made to develop understanding between those of different positions.

It’s true to say however that there is widespread anger because of the way that the Episcopal Church has been perceived to be treated by the Primates and by senior members of the hierarchy in the UK and around the world. The position of welcoming lesbian and gay people is not some arbitrary piece of rights-based legalism; rather, it’s worked out from the profound desire that “the Episcopal Church welcomes you” and is rooted in an understanding of the Gospel and Baptism which seeks to turn no one away. In that context, the way in which more conservative and often rejectionist clergy and bishops are perceived to have been given the lion’s share of attention and support is seen as both unjustified and unfair. Particularly in the light of the fact that there are many services of affirmation of same-sex relationships happening in the Dioceses of London and Southwark yet no one says a word about that.

But the commitment to the Communion remains. Lambeth 2008 is being prepared for carefully, in the hope that it can genuinely provide a meeting of minds and a deeper understanding of the Anglican Communion. And the people we have spoken to are too polite to remind us that without the USA the Communion could not, under any circumstances, survive financially - but their continued support is strong testimony to the way in which the shared history and practice of the Gospel in the Anglican tradition is valued.

Of course the Anglican Communion is about far, far more than the UK and the US. But our churches have a great deal in common. And gracious conversation between us would undoubtedly provide a stronger base to build on for the rest of the Communion, especially those many parts which are feeling disenfranchised by the loud voices of their conservative brothers and sisters. The Global Center, for example. And the province of Australia. We have some ideas ; a joint conference in Boston or NY between the Episcopal Church and the Church of England would be a good place to start. Common affirmation by parishes around the word of the value of Communion. Above all we’re learning that it’s better to talk than to assume, and better to share worship than to get our opinions from the internet. To the entente cordiale, and to Lambeth 2008!

Bishop of Rochester undermines the work of the Church of England

2008-01-08T10:13:00.000Z

Text of a Press Release issued today:
The announcement of the GAFCON conference shows how little concern the neo-conservative lobby has for the rest of the church. Michael Poon’s questions from Singapore were rejected in no uncertain terms. The failure to listen to the concerns of the Bishop of Jerusalem on the proposed conference was made abundantly clear.

Choosing Jerusalem for the meeting simply demonstrates that the neo-conservatives have little interest in the well-being of the Anglican Communion or of the Israel/Palestine situation – the last thing Jerusalem needs is another divisive conference.

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali’s condemnation in the Sunday Telegraph of multiculturalism and remarks about ‘no-go’ areas are unhelpful, and likely to worsen rather than reduce community tensions. The ill-considered nature of his remarks is mirrored in his support for GAFCON and the Diocese of San Joaquin; in both cases he has taken up a position which undermines the work of the Church of England as it seeks to reflect God’s generous love for those of all faiths and none.

The role of a Bishop is to seek to serve and lead the Church and community constructively and supportively. It is not clear to us how the Bishop of Rochester can reconcile his current activities with his place in the House of Bishops.

His claim that ‘If it had not been for the black majority churches and the recent arrival of people from central and eastern Europe, the Christian cause in many of our cities would have looked a lost one’ seems to belittle the faithful witness of Anglicans and other Christians who live and worship in urban areas across Britain, care for the needy, welcome their neighbours of other faiths and challenge the despair, poverty and racial injustice which divide communities. He is however right to point out that the Bible teaches ‘that we have equal dignity and freedom because we are all made in God's image’.

Inclusive Church looks forward to 2008. The preparations for the Lambeth Conference are going well. Those of us who support a church which is truly inclusive and truly welcoming are working closely together through the St Anne’s Network in the UK and our partner organisations across the world, so that the Listening Process called for in the Windsor Report can move forward and we can begin to celebrate the ministry of all people in the Church.

We look forward to a strong and engaged presence by Bishops across the spectrum of the Communion at the Lambeth Conference. We hope that those Bishops in the UK who are supporting the secessionist Dioceses in the USA will recognise the inconsistency of their positions and cease; and we look forward to celebrating our search for a deeper understanding of the love of God alongside Muslims, Jews and those of other faiths around the world in the coming year.

Savitri Hensman and Giles Goddard, for InclusiveChurch

8th January 2008

Compassionate inclusivity

2007-12-24T09:56:00.000Z

I have just been reading a Christmas message from Duleep de Chickera, Anglican Bishop of Colombo in Sri Lanka, on ‘The call to compassionate inclusivity’. He writes:

The essence of the Christmas story is that God becomes a human and reconciles estranged humans, to demonstrate the value of humanity and call humans to live in reconciled, just, and integrated community. This is the Biblical understanding of peace.

Consequently Christmas calls for a radical shift in our world-view if we too want peace. Because God became human and lives amongst humans, humans are to see the face of God in ‘the other’ and strive towards a truly human community. In a nutshell, Christmas is the call to compassionate inclusivity.

This concept of ‘compassionate inclusivity’, while not new, seems highly relevant today, a vital part of the Good News which Anglicans – alongside other Christians – are called to proclaim. In Bishop Duleep’s understanding, ‘the socially excluded and economically exploited, the traditional and historical enemy, and the feared and hated oppressor can come together in a redefined freedom’, though only if grievances are ‘addressed and healed’ and ‘hostile relationships restored through repentance and forgiveness’.

When signs signify: an address of the Rev Dr Louis Weill

2007-12-12T04:18:00.001Z

Here is the full text of Weill's address. Audio had been posted here earlier.

My final purpose in this address is to speak of the radical inclusiveness of Christian Initiation. I found as I developed this work, however, that I first had to explore how the sacraments signify meaning. We say some significant things at a Baptism; but if we do not mean what we say in our rites, then it does not really matter what we say, does it?

***************

A few years ago, two friends of mine were in Rome for a holiday. One day they went to visit the cathedral church of Rome, St. John Lateran. While there, they went to spend some time in the marvelous baptistery of that church. But when they arrived at the baptistery, they were shocked by what they saw.

Within the enormous octagonal walls which anciently held a great amount of water in which Baptism took place, they found no water at all. Rather, in the middle of the octagon, there was what appeared to be an Italian bathtub, perhaps of the 17th.c. Across the two sides of the tub, there was a wooden plank; and resting upon the plank was a small bowl. The bowl was the vessel for holding the water for Baptism as the rite was currently being performed. My friends reminded me that on the walls of the baptistery was carved an extraordinary baptismal passage written by St. Leo the Great in the early 5th.c. The current set up, however, betrayed everything that Leo's words proclaimed.

Less than a year later, I was in Rome, and I decided to go to St. John Lateran to see the baptistery for myself. When I arrived there, it was exactly as my two friends had described it. But as I stood there in amazement, I heard voices coming from a nearby chapel. I went to see what was going on, and lo! it was a Baptism: not in the great baptistery in which I had been standing, but in a small adjacent chapel. In addition to a priest, a few adults were present, parents and family of the infant, I presumed. And on a table a very small bowl contained the water for the rite. I am not sure that St. Leo would even have recognized what was taking place.

Why tell this story? Why does it matter? Quite simply, it matters because our sacramental rites embody meaning, and when the mode of celebration undermines the meaning, then, I believe, we are on a slippery slope toward the trivialization of the meaning, toward the impoverishment of what is being signified.

I must make something clear at the outset or else I risk being misunderstood. I am talking about signification - not about validity. I have not the slightest doubt that even a minimal amount of water can be used for a valid celebration of Baptism. The rite I observed that day was certainly valid. The problem is that historically the Church came to see validity as the primary goal of sacramental celebration. But validity is not at the top of the scale: validity is at the bottom. Validity answers the first basic question as to whether the Church can recognize this ritual act as effecting what the Church intends. In an extremis situation, of course a minimal amount of water is adequate. The trouble is that historically this minimum standard became the common practice even when there were no extenuating circumstances, and when water was available in abundance. The extremis model became the common practice.

It was my great privilege in the 60s, to study sacramental theology with Marie-Dominique Chenu, the distinguished Dominican theologian, and one of the great lights of Vatican II. One day in class, Father Chenu startled us by saying that "in their celebration, the sacraments must border on the vulgar.” He then explained that what he meant by this is that their signification should be made abundantly clear by the manner in which a rite is celebrated. One should not have to explain that Baptism is a spiritual bath, or that the Eucharist is a sacred meal at which people actually eat and drink.

The sacraments touch our humanity in ways which correspond to human experience: in our physical humanity, you and I understand what it is to wash and become clean; we understand what it is to eat and drink and so sustain our lives. The whole sacramental system of the Church is built upon that foundation in our humanity. Father Chenu's teaching had an indelible impact upon my own ministry as a teacher of liturgy, and specifically upon my own understanding of sacramental acts and how they signify meaning.

I do not know if it is as true in Britain as it is in America, but as a society Americans have enormous difficulty in claiming the meaning of a symbol. This may be the result of the literalism of American frontier religion. Whatever the source is, Americans tend to look at religious symbols merely at the literal level. For us in the Anglican tradition for whom religious meaning takes embodied form in ritual actions, within those rituals, the physical elements, water and oil, or bread and wine, become multivalent. This means that the sacraments operate at many levels of meaning; to try to understand them merely at a literal level leads in the end only to the erosion of their meaning and significance in the life of faith.

We do not explain a symbol: we enter into a symbol, and there we are grasped by its meaning. If the signification of a symbol is eroded, then we are left only with its outer shell. The fundamental symbols of Christian faith -- which are essential in Catholic practice for the living out of that faith - embody for us the Paschal Mystery of the death and resurrection of Jesus. Through these symbols, you and I are caught up into God's redemptive work in the history of salvation.

But when the power of their signification is undermined, what are we left with? Earlier I referred to the problem which results when the mode of celebration undermines the meaning. Remember, I am not talking merely about validity: the Church has been generally clear about the minimal standard for validity in our sacramental rites. Again, I am talking about their signification - because without attention to that higher level of sacramental meaning, we risk that the rites may be reduced to merely a liturgical routine, a religious drill which clergy see to on behalf of the laity.

Yet what I want to do here today is not only to plead for modes of celebration which embody as adequately as possible the meaning of the rite. More than that, I am convinced that an impoverished sacramental practice works in a kind of parallel, a mutual inter-relatedness with the impoverishment of their meaning. In other words, not only is the richness of the ritual undermined -- as in the case of the baptistery in Rome -- there is a corresponding trivialization of the theological content which the ritual is intended to embody. There results a minismalism concerned only with validity.

Even a casual look at the history of the liturgy reveals examples of this. Let me point to one of the most obvious: in the history of the Eucharist. For centuries the Sacred Meal of Christians was celebrated in the Church without the laity receiving the Holy Gifts. The way the theology of priesthood had developed had so identified the celebrant as the only necessary communicant that the laity might attend Mass frequently without their non-communication even raising a question. Finally in the early 13th.c., the bishops decreed that laity really must receive the Sacrament once a year. This could only have happened because Communion - sacred eating and drinking - had ceased to be understood as essential to the meaning.

At the common sense level, we would say that a meal at which people do not eat and drink is rather strange. But this is the whole point of Father Chenu's comment: the signification of a sacrament is not obscure; it is manifest. At a meal people eat and drink together; so at the central act of Christian worship, as Sacred Meal, it is evident that reception of the sacrament is normative. The signification is not theoretical, it is embodied. That is the way sacraments work. Hence my title: "When signs signify:” when our rituals manifest their meaning.

With this as background, let me move more directly toward the Baptismal Covenant, both as implied by the rite of Baptism itself, and in its explicit form as found in the American Book of Common Prayer of 1979. To do this, I want first to explore with you an extraordinary passage in the final chapter of The Great Catechism by St. Gregory of Nyssa (330�395). Gregory writes of those who have "come to the grace of baptism,” and yet who are "only seemingly, and not really, regenerate.” This is a startling comment since it suggests that the sacramental act of baptism was somehow invalid. Gregory then speaks of the necessary link to which I have pointed: "For that change in our life which takes place through regeneration will not be change, if we continue in the state in which we were.” In other words, the meaning of baptism as a new birth, a dying and rising with Christ, is undermined if that new being is not somehow manifest.

"I do not see how it is possible to deem one who is

still in the same condition, and in whom there has been

no change in the distinguishing features of his nature, to

be any other than he was � (since) it is for a renovation

and change of our nature that the saving birth is

received.”

We need to be clear at this point that the terms 'valid' or 'invalid' are not in Gregory's vocabulary. Those terms, familiar enough to us, did not appear with reference to the sacraments until well after the Reformation, and at first simply meant 'true' or 'untrue'. In other words, a true sacrament meant that it conformed to the Church's intended meaning: the Church could recognize it as fulfilling its intended meaning. You can easily see how this might contribute to minimalism: just how little water can be used for the rite still to be valid? For the early centuries of Christianity this would simply have been seen as a silly question. The sign and the meaning signified were in accord: the rites embodied their meaning.

Back to Gregory of Nyssa: "it is for a renovation and change of our nature that the saving birth (Baptism) is received.” In other words, the purpose of Baptism is the creation of the new being in Christ - a new being, a changed nature. Gregory continues, "It is evident that when those evil features which mark our nature have been obliterated, a change to a better state takes place. � But if, when the bath has been applied to the body, the soul has not (been) cleansed � but the life after initiation keeps on a level with the uninitiate life, then, though it may be a bold thing to say, yet I will say it and will not shrink, in these cases the water is but water, for the gift of the Holy Spirit in no way appears in him who is thus baptismally born.”

I suspect that this last phrase made some of you rather nervous, especially those who have gone to theological college. Gregory says that the rite can be celebrated and yet not effect what it signifies. Traditional Western theology has taught us that the sacraments "be certain and sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace.” In other words, the sacraments effect what they signify. How do we reconcile that with what Gregory says in this passage?

First let us remember that Gregory is writing in the fourth century. The persecution of Christians had ended only one generation earlier. The memory of the potential cost for professing Christian faith is still vivid. For Christians who were living in Gregory's time, conversion to Christ was the meaning of Baptism, and was the basis of a transformed way of living. In that context, it is easier for us to understand Gregory's teaching: if your life does not demonstrate this transformed way of living, then apparently "the water is but water.”

Can we reconcile that with the later teaching that the sacraments effect what they signify - or, to invoke the classic phrase, ex opere operato? It is important for us to remember that this phrase refers to God's action in the sacraments. The Church was right to affirm in later centuries that if we celebrate the rites faithfully, we can depend upon God's action to make them a means of grace. But what about the human dimension? What about our stewardship of the sacraments? The rites may be the instrumental means of God's grace, but they are not magic. If we plant a seed within a block of cement, it is no surprise if it does not grow and blossom.

Gregory is pointing us to the human side of the sacraments: he asks, what does it mean if what is signified is in no sense manifested? It should sober us to remember that both Hitler and Stalin were baptized. I think that infant Baptism offers us insight on this matter. Remember that in Gregory's time, most candidates for Baptism were adults; a hundred years later, the shift to predominantly infant Baptism was well underway.

Infant Baptism reminds us that the embodiment of the meaning of Baptism in transformed lives is always proleptic; on God's side, the rite effects what it signifies - the infant becomes fully a member of the Body of Christ. But the living of a transformed life must await growth into maturity, and this depends upon an array of "embodiments” on the human side in the care and nurture of the child, and in due course in the Christian formation which will bring the child later to make a profession of faith which as an infant could not be made.

I am not trying to explain away Gregory's teaching by noting the particular circumstances of a fourth century Christian. We cannot know if Gregory would or would not have found a vocabulary of 'validity' useful. The concept was simply not part of the sacramental vocabulary at his time. But I do think that the vigor of his declaration - and he admits that "it may be a bold thing to say,” - confronts us today with a question as relevant to us as it was in his time: is out baptismal liturgy simply a ritual pattern of words, or do we really mean what is said?

Have we for many centuries lived with a situation in which doing the ritual form - be it Baptism or Eucharist, or any other of the Church's sacramental rites - that is, doing the outward sign, has somehow been accepted as sufficient? Is this the negative underside of ex opere operato? -- it is God who acts, so we are off the hook!

Two recent publications have looked at this question in the context of our situation today. Since my focus here is Christian Initiation, I shall mention one of these only in passing because it is concerned with the Eucharist; but the underlying question is the same. My colleague in the Graduate Theological Union, the Franciscan sacramental theologian Kenan Osborne, recently published a book titled Community, Eucharist and Spirituality. In his first chapter, Fr. Osborne discusses the relation of the Eucharist to authentic Christian community as he sees this relationship revealed in the New Testament. Like Gregory of Nyssa, Kenan Osborne startles us. He asserts that in Paul's letters, "there can be no Euchaist in a community whose members do not love one another.” Put another way, the lack of love invalidates the Eucharist. Osborne develops a passionate attack on any attempt to understand the Eucharist in terms of individual piety. The Eucharist for Osborne always presumes a community, not merely a congregation, but a community, and more, a community of love.

Osborne then steps back just a bit from this precipitous edge; it is as though he suddenly remembers, "Oh yes, ex opere operato,” and so he says in his concluding summary that without such a gospel community, "any and every celebration of Eucharist becomes a diminished Eucharist.” But then he adds that without such a community, "Eucharist is meaningless.”

We see here as we saw in Gregory of Nysssa that the sacraments embody meaning. But if that meaning is undermined or eroded, what remains? This question is aimed not at the issue of validity, but rather at signification. "When signs signify,” then the outward ritual form and its meaning confirm each other. As Fr. Chenu taught, the depth of meaning is manifest: the sign and what is signified are essentially one.

The second recent publication is an article by David Batchelder. His title startles us: 'Baptismal Renunciations: Making Promises We Do Not Intend to Keep'. As the title indicates, the focus of the article is the renunciations which, in one form or another, are an essential part of all baptismal liturgies. As the subtitle of this address indicates, my purpose here is to examine "the Baptismal Covenant in its Sacramental Context.” So my focus is different from that of Batchelder. But I have found some of his comments on the renunciations useful with regard to the Baptismal Covenant as well.

The problem which Batchelder's article points to is the same one that we heard about in the words of Gregory of Nyssa. Batchelder writes,

"I worry that our communities have learned to

practice a way of speaking ritually that not only

permits false witness at the font, but establishes

it as a norm. We make claims concerning sin

and evil, but often live as if we have not really

considered the implications. Sometimes I

wonder whether the church believes there are

any serious implications at all. Ritual practice

can give the appearance that accountability

is fulfilled simply by one's participation in the

rites with the moral weight residing in the rhetoric.”

Batchelder continues his passionate cry of the heart with these

words,

"The ethical responsibility of baptismal vows seems

more associated with using strong language that,

paradoxically, absolves the community from the

cross rather than obligates it to the cross. As a

result, ritual performance at the font is in danger

of becoming a scandal of saying what we do not

really mean.”

Batchelder concludes,

"I am concerned that we have claimed permission

to speak a strong truth without the ethical obli-

gation to live the strength of it as suggested by the

language. In such a practice, the potency of the

ritual speech itself is sufficient to excuse weak

practice. Even more dangerous still, the speech

is accepted as a substitute for practice. The late

Neil Postman spoke of this as the 'demeaning of

meaning'.”

Can you hear an echo of Gregory of Nyssa's word in what Batchelder is saying?

Keeping this in mind, let us apply what has been said to what is called in the American Book of Common Prayer (1979) the Baptismal Covenant. The use of that title is new to Prayer Book evolution. I believe, however, that what it says grows out of what has already been present in the evolution of the Book of Common Prayer over the centuries. In the 1979 rite, the title 'The Baptismal Covenant' comes at the point where historically the Apostles' Creed was recited, as in all of the English Books from 1549 to 1662, by the Minister of Baptism. In 1549 in fact, Archbishop Thomas Cranmer kept the medieval Sarum pattern in which the candidate simply responded, "Credo,” "I believe.” In the American Books, from 1789 onward, the candidates were asked to affirm belief in "all the Articles of the Christian Faith, as contained in the Apostles' Creed �,” substituted for the actual recitation of the Creed by the Minister as indicated in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.

In the 1979 Book, The Creed is proclaimed in response to the threefold questions, "Do you believe in God the Father?

� Son? � and Holy Spirit?” I want to emphasize that this affirmation of faith in the Triune God is the first and foundational part of the Baptismal Covenant. The Creed is followed by five questions which have become the focus of criticism and are even treated negatively as though these questions stood alone to form the Baptismal Covenant. And so I emphasize again, the foundation of the Covenant is the affirmation of faith in the Triune God.

For those of you who are not familiar with the American rite, I shall list the questions:

--- "Will you continue in the apostles' teaching and

fellowship, in the breaking of bread, and in the

prayers?”

--- "Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever

you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?”

--- "Will you proclaim by word and example the good

news of God in Christ?”

--- "Will you seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving

your neighbor as yourself?”

--- "Will you strive for justice and peace among all

people, and respect the dignity of every hnuman

being?”

To each of these questions, the candidates for Baptism and the entire assembly respond, "I will, with God's help.” This inclusion of the assembly thus makes the occasion of Baptism the occasion also for the renewal of the baptismal commitment of all who are gathered at the liturgy.

Peter Toon, a priest of the Church of England who now lives in the United States, has been harshly critical of these five questions. Toon isolates the questions from their context. I shall give you his own words.

"What is taken absolutely seriously is the so-called

'Baptismal Covenant', and within it the part where

the baptized commit themselves to striving for peace

and justice in the world and recognizing the dignity

of all persons. � This commitment is � roughly the

equivalent of the social and political agenda of

the United Nations to improve the world.”

Toon insists that the Church is a divine society and that Baptism is incorporation into that society. He states this, an assertion with which we agree, as though the Baptismal Covenant stood somehow in contradiction of that. The Church must not, he says, take its agenda from the world. The American Baptismal Covenant, he says, is primarily concerned only with social implications. This seems to reflect an inadequate under-standing of the theology of Incarnation: "God so loved the world that he came.”

Toon is only able to make this assertion by ignoring the fact that the Covenant begins with the affirmation of creedal Trinitarian faith. Since I was a member of the Commission which wrote the 1979 rite, I know what we intended: for us the questions flowed from the affirmation of faith. It is important to note that in the English rite of 1662, the Creed is followed by a question which was taken into the American Prayer Books prior to that of 1979. The question is:

"Wilt thou then obediently keep God's holy will

and commandments, and walk in the same all

the days of thy life?”

Our intention in the five questions of the American rite was quite simple: we felt that it was necessary and pastorally useful to spell out - as it were, to flesh out - the implications of keeping God's holy will and commandments. It is possible, of course, to hear these questions, and, as we heard from David Batchelder's article, to say "what we do not really mean.” As we have seen, that danger has existed in the liturgy at least as far back as Gregory of Nyssa. The members of our Commission knew that full well. But it was our hope that by being explicit about some of the basic implications of our baptismal commitment - "to continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship; to continue in the breaking of bread, and in the prayers; to persevere in resisting evil, and if we sin to repent and return to the Lord; to proclaim by word and example the Good News of God in Christ; to seek and serve Christ in all persons; to strive for justice and peace among all people; and to respect the dignity of every human being,” - that thus the Baptismal Covenant would become a constant basis for reflection and a reference point for catechetical instruction. The final commitment, to strive for justice and peace and to respect the dignity of every human being, was for us on the Commission the fulfillment of Paul's wonderful words that "there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither bond nor free, neither male nor female,” in its extensive implication that there must be neither black nor white, neither gay nor straight � and the list will continue as long as human beings struggle for justice in the name of Christ.

The hope that the Covenant would assume a significant place in the general life of the Church has been abundantly fulfilled. The Covenant is now often used in preaching and teaching, and has sent down its roots deeply into the awareness of many in our Church. And it has become very common for the Covenant to be renewed not only at a Baptism and at the Easter Vigil, but also at other major events in the life of the Church, and increasingly at Ordinations so that those who are to be ordained renew their baptismal commitment with the whole assembly before they go on to make their ordination vows. This is theologically significant in that Ordination is thus seen as the fruit of the discernment of particular gifts for the ministry of Word and Sacrament for the People of God rather than as an elevation to a higher status. The ordained person lives out his or her baptismal identity within the larger context of the common baptismal vocation.

Sorry Mr. Toon, but I have seen nothing but good fruit

springing from recovery of a baptismal ecclesiology. At the same time, we cannot be na�ve nor unrealistic in our expectations. No liturgical text can of itself renew the life of the Church. And so I come to my final point: it is an absolute imperative that much more energy be devoted on the part of all of us to the ministry of Christian formation. Now as I am nearing the time for retirement, I often find myself saying to my students, "Teach� in season and out of season, teach. Our people are hungry to deepen their understanding of the faith. I have had this confirmed for me time and time again. Whether it be the catechumenate, or adult education during the coffee hour, or an open forum where questions can be asked and engaged respectfully: all such occasions should be seen as opportunities to nourish God's people, to strengthen faith. It is imperative for the Church to claim such opportunities at every level of our corporate life.

I am convinced that much of the conflict in our Communion today has resulted from not making basic education and continuing education a higher priority for laity and clergy alike: education in Scripture, education in basic theology, the exploring of moral issues, mining the riches of our extraordinary liturgical tradition. Throughout my ministry as a teacher of liturgy in seminaries, now for over four decades, I have regularly been involved in lay education in parishes. And this has not meant asking people to read big, fat books. My goal has always been to enable people to reflect on the meaning of their faith and to connect faith in Jesus Christ with the realities of their daily lives. The fruit of this has been to enter more deeply into the symbols of our redemption which form the central meaning of the sacramental life.

To end, I want to return to the baptistery at St. John Lateran in Rome. On the walls of that great baptistery we find the extraordinary words of St. Leo the Great which continue to proclaim to us the meaning of the wonderful gift of incorporation into Christ:

"Here is born in Spirit-soaked fertility

a brood destined for another City,

begotten by God's blowing

and borne upon this torrent

by the Church their virgin mother.

Reborn in these depths they reach for heaven's realm,

the born-but-once unknown by felicity.

This spring is life that floods the world,

the wounds of Christ its awesome source.

Sinner sink beneath this sacred surf

that swallows age and spits up youth.

Sinner here scour sin away down to innocence,

for they know no enmity who are by

one font, one Spirit, one faith made one.

Sinner shudder not at sin's kind and number,

For those born here are holy.”

They were drenched in grace.

Our sound is our wound: audio of an address by the Revd Canon Lucy Winkett

2007-11-22T20:55:00.000Z

Here is audio of a stunningly powerful address by Lucy Winkett, precentor of St. Paul's Cathedral, London. Winkett's topics span a range from liturgy, relevance of the church, sexism, sexuality, and the core message of Christianity. If this sounds like too many topics for one speech, just have a listen to this rhetorical tour de force.

My understanding is that we'll have full text to post later tonight or tomorrow morning.

When signs signify: audio of an address of the Rev Dr Louis Weill

2007-11-22T17:15:00.000Z

This address was given at the start of Day 2 of "Drenched in Grace," a conference of Inclusive Church. The speaker is the Revd Dr Louis Weill, who is James F. Hodges and Harold and Rita Haynes Professor of Liturgics at Church Divinity School of the Pacific in Berkeley, CA.

We hope to have full text next week. For now, please listen to this audio file. Weill connects -- powerfully -- the efficacy of sacraments and the oddity of pretending that we can choose to be "out of communion" with another Christian.

I will post some writing about this address later today (I hope), and I expect it will be cited in today's official statement. I do encourage you to listen to this fine address in its entirety.

(Note: due to a technical problem, the first few seconds of his talk are missing.)

Each of us was given grace: an address by Dr Jenny Plane Te Paa

2007-11-22T17:10:00.000Z

In addition to yesterday's statement, we have already posted a summary and audio of this address, but a full text is now available. Please read this carefully. There are important points here.

“ . . . each of us was given grace . . .”

An indigenous Anglican lay woman (of the global south!)
reflects on ‘inclusivity and grace’.

My sisters and brothers, your kindness and your trust in me are profoundly humbling. Thank you so much for inviting me to be with you. Yesterday I was speaking in Seoul, this morning I was in Hong Kong and now here I am on the other side of the world. Thanks be to God for the twin miracles of jet air-travel and the at times fabulously convenient international dateline which in theory allows us to be literally able to either get ahead of ourselves or indeed to go backwards in time, albeit very briefly!

I acknowledge that we have all traveled from somewhere to be here and that for some of you the work of organizing for our time together began many many months ago – to all those on the organizing committee - we are all indebted to you for your sacrifice, your tenacity, your abundant hospitality and your magnificent vision.

Hopefully this evening I can provide something of a foundational piece upon which we as a gathering of God’s good people might build upon with bold new imagining and with confidently renewed pride as we endeavour anew to be evermore grace-filled global Anglicans!

Friends as I have indicated I want to talk about four things. Firstly, allow me to lay out for you something of an indigenous perspective on ‘inclusivity’, or unconditional belonging. I believe indigenous peoples have at this particular time in our common life a precious contribution to make to our collective capacity to achieve and to maintain the state of relational grace to which we are all called.

Secondly I want to affirm and celebrate the extraordinary work of mission and ministry being done across our beloved Communion in God’s name by those so irrefutably ‘drenched in grace’ in spite of the prevailing tensions.

Thirdly I want to register my own struggle to reconcile a deep and abiding outrage at the way in which the life and death struggles of so many, especially those of women and children continue to be so cruelly compromised by the determinations of those church leaders who continue to place their own personal sexual discomfort above the horrific struggles for life itself among those who are the least among us.

Finally I want to encourage us all to recognize that times such as these we are all endeavouring to live through, are always times for humbly reminding ourselves that it is indeed only by God’s grace and compassion that we are able to discern best ways forward.

We have to be, both wise and bold, prophetic and yet intentional, courageous and yet always gently so. To each of us has indeed a measure of God’s grace been given – sufficient for us to make a difference, sufficient for us to fulfill the call upon each and every one of us to love as we are loved, to do for others that which we would wish for ourselves, to be truly as sisters and brothers in all things for all time.

Just a minor note of ‘warning’! I had originally intended to exegete the Ephesians text in order to weave a ‘credible’ theological theme through this paper. It is what we theologians foolishly imagine we must always do in order to justify our credentials! But somehow as I began to reflect on so much of my recent experience at the international level of the Anglican Communion, I have to confess that more and more I am questioning the way in which scripture is being used to score points instead of being used as a pointer toward the Christ we seek to follow and therefore toward the lives of grace and peace we are called to emulate.

I could so easily have used good and possibly even impressive theological discourse to justify my employment of Paul’s words but instead I have chosen with humility to simply open my heart to you all and to share with you deeply and passionately what it is that I believe we might each find reason to ponder afresh – away from the immediacy of intensely fractious meetings, away from the appalling onslaught of blogs and vitriolic web postings purporting to give us all the latest gossip, the latest blunders, the latest outrageous moves by all the major players, the latest one upmanship (and Lord only knows friends, it is the men is it not?).
We have I think entirely understandably, but possibly now quite unhelpfully, all allowed ourselves to be unduly affected, overwhelmed really by the volume and intensity of all the claims and counter claims, the strikes and counter strikes of global Anglican politics.

This gathering called so evocatively and I think prophetically, ‘drenched in grace’ is our chance to reclaim the grace given to each one of us and to see our responsibility as one of being as readily deserving of that grace as we possibly can be by choosing to live lives slightly less distracted by the current political clamour among church leaders for attention and instead to be more instinctively attuned to the spiritual clamour among God’s people, for mercy, for compassion, for healing and for love.

I am in all humility speaking as much to myself as I am with you all – I confess also that as a result of all I have done in the last week or so I totally rewrote my script by way of being as open and as vulnerable as I have felt compelled to be.

Well firstly and with profound respect, and by way of introducing the first part of my paper, let me share a little more of the indigenous sister that I am and the indigenous proposal I want to share with you.

I know you have a little biographical detail available but that really tells you more of what I do not so much of who I am and isn’t it after all who we are and how we are with and for one another in Christ which enables us to achieve and to maintain that necessarily transcendent state of grace – transcendent of all of the differences that do not ultimately matter and which constantly keep us reaching out for rather than reaching out with God’s grace.

More and more as I move about the Communion I recognize that our intimacy with one another is suffering, our deep and abiding sense of mutual love and affection for one another is being compromised, eroded, side-lined as we focus more and more on power plays than on our love in Christ for one another.

I have spoken before on many occasions about the blessed wisdom of the indigenous elders whose teachings of faith, whose abiding love and laughter has been the refuge to which I have returned time and again as I have found myself called upon to speak, to teach, to pray and to struggle with what at times appear as insurmountable challenges to our faith and witness in our times.

No matter where in the world I find myself, and especially in the most testing of moments I am continuously drawn back to their very simple ways, their very humble teachings and to the abiding sense of tradition, which their very presence alone always conveys. Our elders are precious beyond measure and it seemed to me that the most precious gift I could in turn offer to us all this evening is something of that which I have for my lifetime been so incalculably privileged to receive.

I raise the issue of personal or intimate knowing of and about one another, because certainly for indigenous peoples, what is of paramount importance to establishing and maintaining the sacred basis of relationality with all in God’s creation, is having the humility, compassion, grace and wisdom, and above all else, the instinctive spiritual yearning to continuously seek to do so no matter the efforts external or internal, to destroy or undermine.

Let me offer you just one example of how this ‘instinct toward relationality’ works in my own cultural context. In the Maori community, within which I am primarily located, when strangers encounter one another, the proper words of enquiry are always ‘ko wai koe’ or, ‘who are you, (in relation to others), not simply, who are you the individual before me?

The proper retort is always to name the ancestral ones from whom you are descended. So in my case I would always say ‘ko ahau te mokopuna a Ephraim’ or I am the granddaughter of Ephraim, (who everyone in the entire Maori community knew as a deeply respected tribal elder from the northern coastal village of Ahipara, and who was married to Hariata of the Okena family from the next valley over).

That minimal six-word response of mine actually provided an extraordinary amount of critical location and status information to the enquirer. So for example, without me actually speaking the details my enquirer would now know, I was from the tribe known as Te Rarawa (because Te Rarawa people are from the geographical area within which Ahipara is located), they would have in their mind a picture of the village located at the bottom end of a glorious golden sandy beach known as Ninety Mile Beach, they would recall the tribal name Te Rarawa with all the particular history of formation, struggle and ways of surviving attaching to those people, they would know that I was most likely to be an Anglican (because Ahipara and the people of Te Rarawa were among the first indigenous Maori to welcome, shelter and nurture CMS missionaries), they would know that I was the child of one of Ephraim and Hariata’s sixteen children, they would know that because of my tribal affiliations that I belonged to the traditional marae or the village meeting house known as Nga Ohaki, the place of standing and of acknowledging the chiefly status of my grandfather.

They would know that I would most likely vote Labour, in sympathy with the long established preferred political tradition toward left-leaning liberalism in the far north region. They would know that I must therefore be related to this person and that person also from the same tribe, that I was from both a fishing and farming community and so on it would go.

From one single line enquiry about who I am, and from my single line response referring to the appropriate ancestor, suddenly almost the entire communion of saints from one small rural tribal community is revealed.

All of this in the simplest of human encounters, which thus establishes, affirms, protects and celebrates relationality. So my enquirer would now know how, why and where they stood in relationship with me because of my relationships with so many others and the same would then occur in reverse. Reciprocity and inclusivity are utterly characteristic of all indigenous encounters. It is our ‘business’ to know who is in the village at all times.

Conversely if we take the non-indigenous approach then should we encounter one another as strangers and you should ask me ‘ko wai koe’, or who are you, then I might tell you my name is Jenny Te Paa, I live in Auckland and I work at St John’s College. Here all you get is the disconnected data telling you I am an individual person with a name who lives somewhere and works somewhere – a bit like the bio detail you have before you.

Here in this exchange there is nothing culturally prescribed which details broader connections, about family links, about critical formative history, about likely social, political, economic or spiritual influences, all of which are inevitably determinative of so much in all of our lives.

The non-indigenous encounter is instead primarily prescribed by the prior importance attaching to individual achievement (we are somehow the sum total almost of our professional roles) and preferably includes reference to or evidence of significant material acquisition resulting in elevated economic status (we are someone because of our professional role or because of where we live). Such is the way of much of the modern world.

Now I know I generalize very uncritically, but I also know many of you can recognize what it is that I am driving at here because on so many occasions as I encounter friends across the Communion, I am told how envious many in the first world are of those of us in the fourth world who still enjoy the incalculably precious gift of knowing and living within extraordinarily intimate, inclusive albeit at times confusingly and maddeningly complex intergenerational tribally based family and wider kinship networks. This system while far from perfect and seriously under threat nevertheless has I believe, much to commend it in the present circumstance.

I have also noticed especially in the first world churches that this sense of personal disconnection from one another has had an especially deleterious effect. I see in inclusive churches a profoundly loving effort to recapture some of that intimacy, that deeper sense of unconditional belonging to one another. What we must always guard against however is the tendency to become insular and self-serving – the ultimate purpose of our relationality with one another has surely to be our enhanced capacity to be Christlike in our relationality, especially with those who are as strangers to us.

I raise this issue of ‘right relationality’ because it to be one of the things in the cultural practices, somewhat unique but not entirely exclusive to indigenous peoples, which I consider utterly worthy of exploring further with a view to enhancing our shared common life. This is especially so in the case of those practices, which define, protect, enhance and nurture quality relationships between and among the people. For it is these encounters among and between ourselves as God’s peoples which are indeed precious acts of grace, acts of tenderness, of familiarity, of intimacy and of embrace – we surely cannot have too many of these, we surely cannot become too ‘drenched’ in the warmth and tenderness of right relationality?

As the global Anglican Communion now seeks so desperately and with such urgency to identify ways of re-storing, re-newing, re-conciling itself from within, then I figure surely it is not entirely inconceivable that a measure of salvific wisdom might just emerge from within the indigenous remnants.

Indigenous Anglicans are those who have historically and in some cases, still are positioned firmly and powerlessly, on the underside of ‘mainstream’ Anglicanism, And yet in spite of this irrefutable and not insignificant experience of historic institutional injustice there nevertheless remains a sizeable community of the faithful within whom resides a good measure of wisdom and insight which is just begging to be offered into the current debates.

Many of you would appreciate that many indigenous Anglicans have over the years of suffering since our respective experiences of colonization, had many reasons to wonder about the possibility of God’s absence from our lives. However instead of ever doubting God, the majority of us have consistently in faith and trust and love, learned to cry out of new depths for mercy, for kindness and for God’s justice to someday prevail for all and not just for some, even as we simultaneously commit ourselves to the project of integration and of actively seeking for mutuality and interdependence within those communities, societies, nations where we now live.

The words of Bruggemann are indicative, ‘What we make of pain is perhaps the most telling factor for the question of life and the nature of our faith.’

It seems utterly appropriate therefore that at this time that what we indigenous Anglicans might make of our pain, is to see through it into the suffering of others and to wonder if there isn’t a word of solace, a gesture of comfort, a touch of love we could offer up out of our own experience.

My point in focusing upon the issue of indigenous relationality is one such gesture. It occurs to me that it is time indigenous Anglicans found our voices not simply of grievance but preferably now of gift and of generosity – we are after all peoples of various lands, immensely proud and fiercely protective of our traditions.

We are above all else still to a significant degree, peoples of unequivocal faith. A measure of the authenticity of the sum total of all of that, must however surely be our willingness to act in trust with faith together with all our sisters and brothers in Christ in order to build up the kingdom.

We can and I believe we must therefore indicate our willingness to offer forth something of the gifts of grace entrusted to us ultimately not for ourselves alone but rather for the benefit of all in God’s creation.

Our instinct for inclusive relationality is one such ‘gift’. As I have explained, according to our tribal tradition, everyone in an indigenous tribal village belongs, everyone is included in everything. Belonging carries with it an inherent responsibility for the wellbeing of one another. There is therefore both a sense of familial connection and of moral duty in the form of reciprocity implicit in the tradition of indigenous relationality.

The Churches in my own tribal community historically reinforced this view by their own laudable attitudes and practices of cooperation, mutuality and interdependence. At any significant community event all of the church leaders would be present, each contributing significantly, each respecting the other publicly. It was in this way that I grew up believing that loving, mutually respectful, generous hearted relationality between and among ourselves as God’s people was indeed the place of deep and abiding grace.

There was no exclusionary consciousness, not even subliminal, there was no formalized process for excluding anyone from the affairs of the tribe, the church, or from the village itself for any reason. Bad behaviour (and there was plenty of it!) was certainly punished either through the regular law and order forces of the state or by various culturally sanctioned practices intended to moderate if not transform bad behaviour. While some were indeed physically removed from the community through these processes they were never spiritually nor emotionally disconnected from their place of standing, their place of belonging.

In my fifty plus years of being a child of Ahipara, I know of no one who was ever cast outside of this kinship structure. As far as I am aware you simply cannot be excluded. If you were connected by relationship then you belonged pure and simple! In this way it didn’t matter if you were good or bad, tall or short, gay or straight, ugly or pretty, young or old, honest or not, rich or poor. If you could connect yourself through the ancestors into any generation then you belonged and had rights of access to the communal places and the assets of the tribe.

Many indigenous Anglicans thus still live out on a daily basis a beautiful and inclusive cultural practice which I believe to be irrefutably, ‘drenched in grace’ – and yet even as I say this, I reiterate that the fullest measure of this can surely only be rendered in our willingness to give away something of this precious tradition albeit from a place of significant deficit.

I acknowledge we do not have the worldwide franchise on the kinship practices I am describing here but certainly I know from experience that we are one of the few distinct population groups who have been more than vigilant in preserving its practice.

I acknowledge also that within our communities there is much in the contemporary circumstance to be decried. However, on balance, I remain convinced that there is indeed a cultural treasure available to us all in the form of the best indigenous practice of right relationality. I believe with appropriate adaptation it could only serve to benefit especially those whose lives are to the largest extent bereft of intense and deeply reassuring human intimacy.

Let me move now away from the specificity of indigenous context into the more expansive realm of human encounter. What has in the past exasperated me beyond measure in the current tensions is the extent to which I believed the quietly faithfilled devotional work being undertaken unquestioningly, without fuss, day in and out, year in and out by thousands of ‘ordinary’ faith filled Anglicans, particularly Anglican women, continues to be placed at such risk of being unduly and unjustly compromised as more and more church leaders are distracted by the bitterly divisive politics of exclusion.

As I have been especially privileged to move across the entire Anglican Communion in recent years I have been ever conscious of the ways in which the current tensions have and are still manifesting themselves often in relentlessly bizarre ways. I still struggle against an increasing despondency about just how pervasive the reach of enmity among us has become.

And yet of recent months I have received more and more of the sage advice of elders and of those at the frontline of the most difficult of hands on pastoral care work. It is they who are beginning to insist, to those of us who would listen to their pleas, that it is imperative for us all to look beyond the vitriole, the hysteria, the noisy gongs and instead to notice anew all that has actually remained constant, to notice anew all those whose dedication, sacrifice, service and commitment to God’s mission has not altered and will not ever be altered one tiny bit no matter how many threats, claims and abuses are being made at the level of male church leadership struggles.

I have therefore been encouraged to look again at the exemplary work and witness of many thousands of unsung Anglican men and women, young and old, those whose lives of selfless mostly voluntary service, will not and cannot ever be disrupted by the prospect of schism, by legal claims and counter claims or by indecently ferocious doctrinal arguments.

I am being reminded that none of these things can possibly disrupt or compromise lives given over freely, unquestioningly to the care of the poor, the feeding of the hungry, the release of the captives, the recovery of sight to the blind.

I am being reminded of those who are variously described as ‘low-key’ clergy, those who are not necessarily involved in high powered Diocesan committee’s or General Synod affairs but who are instead deeply, inextricably involved in every single aspect of God’s mission and ministry in their local communities, I am speaking of the Sunday School teachers, of all the children of our Church, of the youth group leaders, the cake bakers, the brass cleaners, the altar cloth embroiderers, the builders, the vergers, the gardeners, the chairs of vestries, the parish treasurers, the flower arrangers, the cathedral friends, the social service agency workers, the women’s guilds and committee’s.

I am speaking of those who volunteer to do anything at the ring of the church bell but who are either; totally unaware of the current tensions or are totally perplexed by them. But I think I am speaking more and with profound admiration of those who are actually teaching us all through their prior unshakeable commitment to ‘good works’, that their way of demonstrating an appropriate and yet dignified disdain for those calling and acting for disunity, is not to confront, nor to disparage but rather to continuously exemplify grace filled, charitable and quietly patient servanthood behaviour.

I am reminded here of Volf, that it is only in our demonstrable capacity and willingness to let go of outrage, of our despair and of our determinations to hold on to memories of wrongdoing that we in fact act with grace. Yet he says, this is never an uncritical action – it must be governed by the logic of grace which is to do with first finding our proper selves in God who is love. There and only there can we fully flourish by what God’s love does in and through us – we cannot help but exercise our God given capacity for forgiveness, compassion and reconciliation, for life-giving acts of grace.

We become capable as Luther suggests, ‘of living in Christ thru faith and in our neighbour thru love. By faith we are caught up beyond ourselves to God. By love we descend beneath ourselves into our neighbours. Yet we remain always in God in God’s love’.

It is in this way that I begun to think more of those in my own life whose Christian witness is characterized by humble, tireless and selfless devotion, abundant compassion, endless sacrifice and unbounded service to the Church. I can see the faces and say the names of those from whom I have inherited my own love of the Church. Those whose voices raised in song and in chanted prayer formed my own spirituality and shaped my faith commitment; those whose laughter and lessons still resonate deep within me, whose own faith example has inspired my own witness in God’s world, those who cautioned me to be as political as I liked but to never forget how to pray, those who unquestioningly urged me to assume positions of leadership even as they insisted I never forget how to be humble.

I am not alone – I know you too can recall the faces, the names from whom you also inherited the gift of your faith. I accept that now is indeed the time for us all to recognize that to each of these faith filled witnesses was given grace and from each of them we have in turn been gifted with the same measure – our recognition of that and our response to it, is surely indicative of whether or not we have in turn been drenched or merely sprinkled with grace.

I accept that my undue preoccupation with the presenting tensions has rendered me somewhat ‘blinded’ to the cloud of witnesses whose example is ever before us and whose example must never be diminished, overlooked, even as issues such as those before us all, threaten to overwhelm.

It is not to suggest that those of us involved at the frontier of struggle against the so called ‘schismatics’ are acting incorrectly or even single-mindedly, nor is it to suggest that there is an either or approach to mission and ministry on one hand and ecclesial activism on the other.

What I am endeavouring to point us toward is that I am hearing and seeing from among those perhaps not so intently involved in the contemporary political struggles of our church something of a plaintive cry for more of that presence upon which their work indeed all of our work, of discipleship and witness is ultimately dependent and that is a portion of the undistracted grace filled presence of those appointed to lead, to teach and to exercise pastoral leadership.

I am hearing more and more from my students, from women in the church, from lay people, from clergy not only their angst about how distracted the entire Church is becoming from the pressing issues of mission and ministry but also about how unduly distracted many good people in church leadership are also becoming by the immediacy of demand for reaction and for defensive response.

I hear a cry for reconsideration of what may well be an understandable, but increasingly uncritical priority being given over to reaction rather than to contemplation, to defensiveness rather than to exemplary and confident ministry presence.

My friends let me shift gear ever so slightly. I have now been a member of the Anglican Peace and Justice Network for nearly 12 years and have been Convenor for the last six or so. During my time in the Network I have been privileged beyond measure to experience sites of ongoing human suffering as a result of war most notably Palestine and Sri Lanka, and places still struggling to reconcile the aftermath of wanton, random murderous human aggression – Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, North and South Korea, South Africa.

The most compelling images I have of all of the exposures I have, are the faces of women and children especially among the millions of innocent widows and orphans that war, any armed conflict inevitably produces.

In Sri Lanka I met with women survivors of the relentless civil war in that most extraordinarily beautiful of lands. Women whose children have been drafted as child soldiers, women who can make no sense of the brutality which ethnic conflict inevitably engenders. In Israel and Palestine mothers daily, hourly weep for loved ones lost to crazed suicidal ideology, lost to vicious religious hatred, thousands of children traumatized by the constancy of war in their playgrounds of life.

In Kenya, Masai women whose lives are prescribed within the life denying limitations of cultural dictates, whose children live lives prescribed by the ever present threats of malaria, preventable disease and grinding poverty. In September I met with women survivors of the Kigali genocide and as our eyes met and as we embraced in the spirit of shared unspeakable grief about terror, about slaughter, about rape, about incomprehensible horror, I wept silently in rage and confusion at how on earth there could possibly be a more pressing or urgent agenda for us all as Church to be addressing.

This last week I saw and heard of the plight of women and children in North Korea – we were unable to speak with any, unable to get close enough to see and yet even at a distance it was obvious – no electricity, no running water, no fuel, no heating, no freedom to think, to speak, to run free.

Oh I know I am not telling you anything new – we all know there is unprecedented suffering all over God’s world. We all know therefore there is more than enough to keep everyone of us preoccupied for the rest of our lives and yet we Anglicans continue to fuss and we fret and we fight.

Allow me if you will to share with you that just this week as I pondered not only Korea but so much of what I have done and seen and heard this entire year, once again in a moment of contemplative reflection instead of the indignant rage I have been so bothered with of late, I was reminded to see instead the faces of the many ‘ordinary’ faith filled Anglicans both victims and care-givers who are simply preoccupied with the day to day struggles to either save or to heal broken lives.

God only knows how much we all owe to those involved in the provision of aid to the victims of war – to those working with women and young girls to save or to counsel them from the unspeakable trauma of wanton sexual violence, to those working to provide basic supplies of food, medicine, clothing; to those endeavouring often against all odds to assist in rebuilding shattered lives.

These are our exemplars of God’s mission and ministry, these are our sisters and brothers, so utterly drenched in God’s grace, who have since time immemorial given absolute unquestioned priority to the day to day struggles of too many to simply stay alive, to stay safe, to survive famine, war, sexual violence, disease. I wondered what they would have me say at times like this? What would they say if they were here this evening?

I can’t help myself when I want so much to cry out in rage, about anyone who dares to ‘fuss’ about who is worthy of participation in the orders and offices of the Church while so many in our shared family are suffering and dying needlessly. I want to rage on about what a travesty of faith this kind of attitude and behaviour represents, about what an abuse of the gift of God’s grace all of this is and then I am reminded that the more I focus upon blaming and judging, anticipating and reacting the less I am present and able instead to develop what Thomas Cahill describes as the narratives of grace, ‘the recountings of those blessed and inexplicable moments when someone did something for someone else, saved a life, bestowed a gift, gave something beyond what was required by the circumstance.’

And this I realize is what being ‘drenched in grace’ is calling me into – is calling us all into. We are being challenged to find within ourselves renewed appreciation of all that is good and true and kind, of all that is life-giving and life-sustaining, of all that is merciful and humbling.

We are I believe being challenged in the current circumstance not so much to focus too intently and singularly on the bad behaviour of the few, but rather to focus anew the very good behaviour of the many whose exemplary regard for the sacredness of all others whom God has created points us all toward that way in which God would probably say that grace is to be truly expressed.

This is not to say we ignore the political struggles swirling all around us, not for a moment, but rather it is to say we need to pause and to consider whether or not our approach to these matters is primarily one of self-righteous admonition or one of transcendent grace?

If it is true that our new identity in Christ is one utterly transformative of our relationships with one another then it follows that to the largest extent our speaking and our behaving must also be radically reinscribed firstly in our hearts and then and only then, in our minds.

Transcendent grace enables us to hold both to the necessary project of pursuing God’s justice in the face of any and all injustice even as it simultaneously enables us to participate in the immediate and desparately urgent pastoral work of healing and of reconciling.

And so my sisters and brothers what is it that we are to do? Are we to continue to draw our lines in the shifting sands of ecclesial aggression and blaming, of accusing and judging? Or are we to shift our emphasis to embrace simultaneously and in sufficient measure, grace filled mutual affection and uplift of one another, together with boldly reconciling behaviour? Can we exemplify the very best of God’s grace even as we continue to name decisively and to act boldly and courageously against all of those things, which we know to be unacceptable in God’s sight? Can we stand more confidently together as members of the family of Christ, on the common ground of God’s world, on the basis of a newly apprehended indigenous model of unconditionally inclusive relationality?

Can we do all of this as people connected as adversaries and as friends, across the villages, towns, cities and nations into which we are blessed to be born – a people who know and are known by the ancestors; who know the rivers and lakes and mountains which shelter and nurture us all; a people committed to the full participation and flourishing of all in God’s world; a people unafraid of simplicity or of suffering, a people instinctively attuned to heartfelt wisdom, to forgiveness, to unconditional belonging, to God’s grace and peace with and for us all? I am confident that we will, we can and we must . . . in Christ’s name. Amen.

Out of the silence: an address by the Revd Dr Sharon Moughtin-Mumby

2007-11-22T17:00:00.000Z

This talk was given at "Drenched in Grace" this morning. Because Moughtin-Mumby was unable to be with us, the address was read by the Revd Canon Giles Goddard, chair of Inclusive Church.

Moughtin-Mumby, prior to ordination, was Old Testament Lecturer at Ripon College Cuddesdon. Now she is curate at St. Peter's, Walworth in the Diocese of Southwark.

Audio is available. Here follows the full text (uncorrected):

Which biblical texts would we like to exclude from our canon of belief? Which would we prefer to reject? Is there a point at which a biblical text becomes for us so problematic that we must set it to one side, and conclude that it has nothing of God to say to us? There are certainly some who believe so. In the face of the biblical texts I have spent time reading - those concerned with sexual violence in the Hebrew Bible - there are those who have explicitly rejected these texts, insisting we need new language, new metaphors to replace these disturbing images of God. It can be tempting to agree with such voices when confronted with what are for us ‘texts of terror’. But in the process of reading some of the Bible’s more violent and disquieting passages, I have come to believe that these texts can be a real treasure for us: a place where we can hear God speaking quietly, but insistently, if we only have ‘ears to hear’.

What I will not be talking about this morning is how to deproblematize or easily resolve the more difficult texts of the Bible: how to read them in a way that leaves them saying something they are simply not saying. There are plenty who seek to do this, returning to challenging passages of the Bible and taking them apart etymologically, grammatically, historically… using every trick in the book in an attempt somehow to rescue these texts from themselves. Personally, I am uncomfortable with such an approach because I am not sure what it is saying theologically.

When we seek to resolve disquieting passages in the Bible, are we saying that life with God can involve no ambiguities, no times of darkness or absence, no times of difficulty or challenge? Are we suggesting that we would prefer the story of God and God’s people to be a triumphalist narrative of prosperity, where the voiceless and the marginalised have no place, and the abandoned are an embarrassment?

What kind of Christian hermeneutic are we talking about if we say that God cannot be present among the silent, the battered, the rejected; that the voice of God simply cannot be speaking there? Surely, from our collective experience, it is in these places that we should be pricking up our ears and waiting expectantly? In short, I believe it is vital for us to explore a hermeneutic that refuses to skip over the difficult and challenging or awkward passages of the Bible, just as in the Inclusive Church we are hopefully committed to refusing to skip over those who can be made to feel like the difficult, challenging or awkward members of the people of God; a hermeneutic which resists avoiding passages because they are painful for us to hear, just as we are committed to hearing all people’s stories, no matter how uncomfortable they might make us feel.

In reading the disquieting passages of the Bible, the vital question is ‘where is the voice of God in this place?’ And it is important to begin with the recognition that it may not always be straightforward to perceive God’s voice within the pages of the Bible (just as it is not always straightforward to discern God’s voice within life). One of the great modern fallacies proliferating today is that we can assume that God speaks opaquely within the Bible. There is little within tradition to suggest this. As good Anglicans (!), we may be keen to affirm Article VI of the 39 articles: ‘Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation’. But as that important Anglican voice Richard Hooker stresses, affirming this belief does not mean that we must act like those who (quote) ‘grow unto a dangerous extremity as if Scripture did not contain all things in that kind necessary, but all things simply’. God’s voice will not always be simple to discern within the pages Bible. Indeed, if we are to look at the Bible itself, it suggests nowhere that the ‘voice of God’ will be easy to locate and interpret: rather it frequently suggests the opposite.

Ezekiel can be among the most uncomfortable books to read in the Bible, overflowing with troubling, often violent passages. And so it is intriguing to discover that the reader is given a tip on how to read this book within its own introductory passages. In the wake of that extraordinary vision of God in chapter 1, an unidentified voice speaks in chapter 2, ordering the prophet to swallow whatever is given to him. Before the terrified prophet, appears a scroll, written all over, both front and back: no room remains for dissent, additions, or interpretation. The scroll is filled with (quote) ‘lamentations, mourning, and woe’. Three times Ezekiel is commanded to eat, dramatically capturing the prophet’s appalled hesitation at stomaching such a message on behalf of his people. We can only imagine his bewilderment and relief when on consuming the scroll, it becomes as sweet as honey in his mouth.

The story of the horrified prophet swallowing the scroll appears at the beginning of Ezekiel for a reason. Ezekiel is being presented to us as a vital model for reading this most difficult prophetic book. For the book of Ezekiel is itself a scroll overflowing with ‘lamentations, mourning, and woe’, amongst the most troubling works in the Old Testament. Like the prophet, we readers are carefully advised not only to look at this book’s surface level. For then we might either hesitate to accept its dreadful words, or attempt straightforwardly to translate their complex message into our lives in inappropriate ways - by mimicking its violence for instance. Instead this book challenges to take courage and - even while aware of its dreadful exterior - to receive its words deep within ourselves. For it is only then that we might experience the sweetness of their taste: only then that we might perceive God speaking within us in strange and unforeseen ways. This is no model of simplistic discernment of the ‘voice of God’ speaking within the ‘word of God’.

Turning to the New Testament, within the synoptic Gospels, Jesus’s parables are repeatedly presented as a challenge to be interpreted. Jesus speaks in parables so that ‘seeing they do not perceive, and hearing they do not listen, nor do they understand’ (Matthew 13:13; Mark 4:10; Luke 8:12 cf. Isaiah 6:10). The technique of perceiving God’s voice within the parables is something to be learned: it certainly does not involve a ‘simple’ process of reading or hearing. Tom Wright (2002: 164) compares Jesus’ parables to mazes, ‘designed to challenge his listeners to work out for themselves how to get to the heart of things.’ The message is rarely in the straightforward meaning of the parable itself - often far from it! It is more complex to discern. As Jesus himself said, ‘Let anyone with ears to hear, listen!’ (Matthew 11:15, 13:9, 13:43, Mark 4:9, 4:23, Luke 8:8, 14:35, cf. Mark 8:18). From these and other examples, we see that the Bible itself rarely presents the voice of God or divine meaning as easily located, easily understood. So why should we expect meaning to be provided on a plate when we read biblical texts?

The more difficult texts of the Bible present us with a challenge, but it is a challenge that we should neither be afraid of, nor seek to avoid. Instead, among those texts which involve the silent, the battered, the rejected, the oppressed, perhaps it is here we should be most expectant to hear the voice of God, sharpening our ears so that they might become ‘ears to hear’. One way of doing this, which I would like us to explore this morning, is opening ourselves up to the possibility that, at times, God’s voice is to be heard not in the black print of the Bible’s pages set so clearly before us, but instead in the silences and margins of the text.

The Bible itself hints at this possibility.

In 1 Kings 19, Elijah is standing in a cave on Mount Horeb. He is about to encounter God. Before the prophet’s terrified eyes comes a mighty wind ‘so strong that it was splitting mountains and breaking rocks in pieces before the LORD’ (19:11). In its aftermath, a powerful earthquake shakes the mountain, then fierce fire blazes all around him (9:11-12). Yet the voice of God is in none of these wonders. This might come as a surprise to the attentive reader. Anyone familiar with the Hebrew Bible will know that God’s traditional herald on a mountain is an earthquake, preferably coupled with fire (Exodus 19:18, 24:17, Deuteronomy 5:4, 5, 22, 23, 9:10, etc.). In the preceding chapter, Elijah himself has just encountered God’s saving action in fire and wind: first, as the flames fell overwhelmingly and miraculously on the sacrifice he has prepared in his famous challenge against the prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:38); and, second, as powerful gusts of wind blew torrential rains towards Israel to break the drought hanging over the land (1 Kings 18:45). The attentive reader would probably expect God to be found in the wind, the earthquake, the fire. Yet strangely, paradoxically, this time, the voice of God is to be found in ‘the voice of sheer silence’ (1 Kings 18:12).

I believe we should take this story in 1 Kings 19 seriously, particularly in the face of those biblical texts where we encounter devastation, destruction, and silence. Elijah’s experience stresses that these places are not to be feared, but rather to be treasured. For it is in these waste-places and wildernesses that God is to be found. Not necessarily in the thunder, fire and hurricane of these passages as they shout out their sure and certain theology, but at times instead in their empty, desolate places: in the silence of those who have been given little or no opportunity to speak; in the silence that emerges in the devastated aftermath, if we can just tune our ears to hear.

Those familiar with the Hebrew Bible will not be surprised by the idea that God’s voice might sometimes to be heard in silence. The wilderness is the archetypal place of encounter between God and God’s people: that quintessential place of absence, lying on the chaotic margins of life. According to tradition, even the word for wilderness in Hebrew rbdm, midbar, witnesses to the theme that God’s voice is sometimes, paradoxically, heard in silence.

Like most Hebrew words, rbdm, miDBaR comes from a base-word of three letters, rbd, DBR, meaning ‘word’. The m, ‘m’, at the beginning is then traditionally one of two possibilities.

1. The first possibility is that it forms rbd, DBR, into a participle, meaning ‘wording’, ‘speaking’. This possibility calls attention to the wilderness as the place where God engages most clearly in ‘wording’ with God’s people, giving them for instance the crucial ten commandments (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5), which in Hebrew are in fact not called the ten commandments, but rather the ten ‘words’, {yrbd, DeBaRym (Exodus 34:28, Deuteronomy 10:4).

2. The second possibility is that the m, ‘m’, is the preposition }m, ‘min’, meaning ‘away from.’ This possibility calls attention to the wilderness as the place ‘away from words’, ‘beyond words’, or ‘without words’: the place of absence and silence.

In the tradition of the Hebrew passion for wordplays, some suggest that these possibilities are to be held together, witnessing to the profound paradox that the wilderness is the place ‘beyond words’ where God most powerfully ‘words’ with God’s people. We are perhaps reminded of the extraordinary paradox that the God who cannot be seen is yet at times ‘seen’ by the prophets in astonishing glory (Exodus 24:10, Isaiah 6:1, Ezekiel 1). Once again, the attentive reader is presented with the possibility that God’s voice might not always be found in the black print of the Bible so clearly visible before us, but rather in the empty places, the wildernesses, absences, and silences of the text.

This tradition of God speaking in silence is not only to be found within the Hebrew Bible. It also appears within the New Testament. Jesus was both to hear and to speak the voice of God in wilderness and silence.

1. It was in the wilderness - for the first time according to some - that Jesus discerned his remarkable mission, hearing the voice of God in that place beyond words (Matthew 4:1f., Mark1:12f., Luke 1:80).

2. In the story of the woman caught in adultery (John 8:3-11), it was through silence, that Jesus taught the scribes and Pharisees a most difficult truth when he said nothing, but instead made unknown marks in the sand: leaving the unsettling Gospel message unspoken and yet proclaimed so volubly that the scribes and Pharisees were forced to withdraw.

3. Silence also plays a key role in the astonishing story in which Jesus appears to learn more about his mission from a Gentile woman (Matthew 15:22-8). When the Syrophoenician woman begs Jesus to heal her daughter in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus at first ‘did not answer her a word’ (Matthew 15:23). This woman is confronted with silence. It is only in response to pressure from the disciples that Jesus finally says, ‘I have come to the lost sheep of Israel’ … ‘It is not fair to take the children's food and throw it to the dogs.’

And it is at this point that the woman issues her vital challenge, ‘Yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the crumbs that fall from their masters' table.’ It is as if, having heard the voice of God in that initial silence, this remarkable woman, like Elijah, is somehow able to discern that God’s voice is not to be found in Jesus’ spoken word, but in the silent place: the place where learning and discernment, both for her and, remarkably, for Jesus, can take place.

4. And of course, there is Jesus’ silence before Pontius Pilate in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 27:14; Mark 15:5; Luke 23:9), where Jesus took deep into himself the mission of Isaiah’s Servant, who ‘will not cry out or shout, or make his voice heard on the street’ (Isaiah 42:2), who ‘did not open his mouth’ (Isaiah 53:7), but was led ‘like a sheep that before his shearers is silent’ (53:7). At trial, Jesus crucially revealed himself as God’s Servant not in words, but in silence.

The darker, more chaotic places of the Bible are not places to be afraid of. These places of silence and desolation are precious, just as the wildernesses within us are precious, sacred, and holy. I often wonder why are we so afraid of silence in biblical interpretation when it is so central to other aspects of Christianity. Indeed, with ‘ears to hear’, there may be some of us who actually begin to find ourselves drawn to those silent places. Because this is where God is to be found: the spaces where God can sometimes speak most powerfully, just as God’s word in the beginning (heard by no-one) created life from whbw wht, tohu wa bohu, ‘waste and devastation’, or ‘chaos’, as it is often translated (Genesis 1:2).

My point, of course, is not that God never speaks in words, or in the black print of the text. Clearly Jesus frequently communicated verbally, just as Elijah experienced God, at other times, in hurricane and fire. God’s voice is not to be pinned down within the Bible. My point is simply that we should be open to hearing God speaking not only in those printed words, but also in the silences and margins of the text.

So how do we go about doing this? Preparing ourselves to discern God’s voice in silence?

1. At times, it will involve simply sitting with the silence that comes in the aftermath of the text. Not seeking to lessen it or to resolve it, but letting it be present. Preparation for this involves allowing those most difficult stories and passages within the Bible to be heard just as they are, whatever their implications. This was one of the most important lessons that I learned in moving from academia into the parish. Within the academic world, a common scholarly response to violent or troubling biblical texts is ‘resistant reading’. For instance, in response to the passages where Jerusalem is described as a prostitute and violently punished for her actions, many feminist scholars ‘resistant read’ Jerusalem as a female who actively chooses to live life as a ‘prostitute’ in a business-like manner. Through such a reading, scholars argue that a sense of control is at least returned to the battered female.

On entering parish life and encountering real-life women who had been forced into prostitution or experienced domestic violence, however, the inadequacy of such an approach become starkly apparent to me - at least within the situations of these particular women. Because to ‘resist’ the stories of such women, or to ‘play’ with them in any way, even out of a desire to ‘redeem’ them, was clearly utterly inappropriate.

Instead I found that the greatest challenge was instead to sit and hear those stories - as they are - with all their pain and anger and lack of resolution. Resistant reading had trained me badly for such a task.

Those biblical passages which we find uncomfortable to read challenge us to improve our ability to listen to troubling stories. Not blinkering ourselves to the violence or difficulties that might be present, focusing only on that which we wish to hear; nor continually searching for easy resolution. Instead training ourselves to listen without striving to lessen what is dreadful, or seeking to move too quickly towards answers.

Denise Ackermann has written a short booklet called ‘Tamar’s cry’. It reads the story from 2 Samuel 13 of the rape of Tamar by her brother Amnon from the perspective of a South African woman living in a place where rape, incest and violence are daily realities for women. It compares Tamar’s experience with those women who have been unwillingly forced into sex and then in the devastating aftermath are perceived as ‘soiled goods’ and ostracised due to contracting the HIV virus. For Ackermann it is vital and a relief that Tamar’s story in the Bible ‘says it as it is’. She explains, ‘There is no prevarication, no avoidance of the horror, no cover up… “Saying it as it is” is the place to begin.’ (p.25); ‘Re-reading the story of Tamar’ she continues ‘I feel affirmed by its truth. It unflinchingly portrays women’s vulnerability to abuse.’ (p.25)

And so Ackermann asks what would happen if the church in South Africa would begin to ‘speak out unambiguously about the reasons for the present scourge of HIV/AIDS’ (p.25), telling the story there as it is, just as is modelled within the Bible. Refusing to move towards resolution with those most difficult biblical texts can be imperative. The Bible’s openness about violence - particularly violence done in the name of God - can make for deeply uncomfortable for us, but it is also a challenge to us.

So often the Church has been seen as a place where physical abuse and violence is covered over. What have been called the ‘texts of terror’ in the Bible model a way for us to name the violence we sadly see taking place within the Church. It emphasizes that life within the Church for some can be and has been a painful experience, and - most importantly - this need not be hidden.

2. Second, listening out for God’s voice within silence is at times about being ready to encounter God in the most unexpected places or in unspoken actions: not necessarily in the thunder, hurricane, and dreadful earthquake of the text and its impact on us. In Hosea chapter 1, a prophet gives three dreadful names to his children. The second is named hmhr )l, Lo Ruhamah, ‘Unloved’ or ‘Not Pitied’ (Hosea 1:6). The message: that God will no longer show love, or mercy to the people of Israel. The child’s mother is Gomer. We hear nothing from her. The task that would normally fall to a mother, to name her children, has been usurped: she remains silent. Yet a Hebrew Bible scholar called Yvonne Sherwood calls attention to Hosea 1:8, a short incidental verse, which simply reads, ‘When she had weaned Lo-Ruhamah, she conceived and bore a son.’ The text goes on to name the son. But Sherwood’s attention has been caught by this incidental verse. ‘Gomer weans ‘Unloved’’. Sherwood hears in this silent action another message - a competing discourse - within the book of Hosea. As she writes (1996: 146-7): ‘Weaning implies a prior act of suckling, a gesture of love, that counters the father’s harsh decree… Not Loved, from another perspective, manifestly is loved.’

For Sherwood, Gomer’s ‘silent dissident gesture' - the actions of breastfeeding and weaning - ‘quietly reasserts the voice of reason’, as this mother responds to this baby ‘in the expected manner.’ Sherwood’s interest is in the voice of reason in Hosea, but we might wonder where is the ‘voice of God’. Using our discernment and what we know about God from the Bible, from tradition, and from our experience, is the voice of God more likely to be in those dreadful written words in which the prophet speaks of God utterly abandoning his people without pity? Or in the silent gesture of Gomer, acting out a message of quiet and gentle love to the unloved? We know within our daily life that God is not always to be found among those who shout the loudest, who speak most articulately and confidently, those who claim to be the authoritative voice, who claim to be able to pin down the essence of God. God can also at times be found in the margins, among the voiceless, in the silent small actions of those we might call ‘others’. This is also worth remembering as we read the Bible.

3. Third, preparing ourselves to hear God’s voice in silence can mean at times being ready to actively explore and question the Bible’s silent and wilderness places; opening these silences up to scrutiny as we search the text: even giving these silences voice. For centuries, the Jewish aggadic midrashic tradition has modelled what it can mean to approach the Bible in this way. This tradition takes the silent voices and empty places of the Bible very seriously. Here the black print of the text is not the final authority, but God speaks to the reader in rather more complex ways as the reader struggles and wrestles with the text, entering into relationship with it: interrogating it, probing and penetrating it, particularly where it remains staunchly silent, and exploring its various multiple potentialities and hidden dimensions.
In Genesis 22 - the story of the near-sacrifice of Isaac - for instance, many midrashic readings commit themselves to exploring the deafening silence reverberating through the second verse, in God’s dreadful command. God says to Abraham, ‘Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah and offer him there as a burnt offering’ (22:2). ‘Take your only son.’ Abraham doesn’t have just one son: he has two! What has happened to Ishmael - his first born? Midrashic readings pick up this absence, hearing within God’s string of commands a silent questioning from Abraham, which recognizes that Ishmael is another precious gift of a child given to him.

(The biblical text is given in bold, Abraham’s articulated silence in italics.)
God: ‘Take now thy son.’
Abraham: ‘I have two sons, and I do not know which of them Thou commandest me to take.’
God: ‘Thine only son.’
Abraham: ‘The one is the only son of his mother, and the other is the only son of his mother.’
God: ‘Whom thou lovest.’
Abraham: I love this one and I love that one.’
God: ‘Even Isaac.’
The silence surrounding Ishmael in Genesis 22 is brought sharply to our attention as the midrash imagines a voice for Abraham. And so another perspective to this narrative is brought into focus: an interfaith perspective. In the silence of the biblical narrative we suddenly begin to perceive the echoes of centuries of misunderstanding and absence of dialogue between the Jewish children of Isaac and the Muslim children of Ishmael. Probing and exploring this silence challenges us to wonder ourselves whether we in our daily lives are reinforcing this silence, which still resonates today, or whether we are committed to speaking and hearing dialogue within it.

It is perhaps significant that when this story appears within the Quran (Surah 37:100-12), the son remains unnamed throughout. Islamic tradition generally assumes that the child that God commands Abraham to sacrifice is his first-born, Ishmael, and not Isaac: there is another silence that could perhaps do with exploring and probing further.

In questioning whether the ‘voice of God’ speaking to us is to be found within the disquieting printed words of the text, which have the power to shatter Abraham’s calling with the force of an earthquake, or in that still silent voice heard echoing in the wildernesses between those words, midrashic readings challenge us about how we read the Bible. Nor is this only a Jewish way of reading. Instances of such a dynamic and interactive approach to Scripture can also be found within Early Christianity. An ancient song attributed to the fourth century Archimandrite, Ephrem the Syrian, to be sung during the Orthodox Easter liturgy, imagines Abraham questioning God’s terrible command.

For ‘who would not have remonstrated with [God]’, the song sensibly asks, giving voice to Abraham’s inexplicable silence:
‘Why, Master, have you ordered these things to be?
Why have you uttered these unwelcome words?
Was it for this you wished to make me a father,
that you might all at once make me a child murderer? […]
Am I to become a child murderer? Is this what you order,
and is it in such sacrifices that you take you delight?
Do you command me to slay my most dear son,
by whom I had hoped with Sarah to be buried?...

Many might be relieved by the silent Sarah also thus being given a part in this story. Abraham does not ask such questions in the biblical narrative, however: Ephrem’s song concludes with wonder, ‘But the just man did not give any such answers.’ Yet in exploring what might have been said, in opening up the silence and exploring it, this song calls sharp attention to the reality that Abraham could have questioned God, indeed might have been expected to. After all, he questions God forcefully at other times, bargaining with God for the lives of those living in Sodom and Gomorrah, for instance, just four chapters earlier in Genesis 18. Why was he not willing to bargain for the life of his son, Isaac?

We begin to interpret the silence ourselves here. Was Abraham silent because, like many of us, he is more able to believe in the sanctity and faithfulness of God’s promise to others, than in the sanctity and faithfulness of God’s promise to himself or to his family? When do we do this ourselves? Ephrem the Syrian’s song is a poignant example from within Christian tradition of when the Bible was still engaged with as a living text, with hidden dimensions to be opened up. We might wonder when within Christianity we lost this tradition of interacting with the text, faithfully exploring its possibilities, rather than closing down its options and pinning down God’s voice.

There are strong challenges to us within the silences of these biblical texts when we call attention to them and give them voice.

The importance of articulating these silences is something that feminist readers have known for quite some time now, as there are plenty of examples of silent women in the Bible whose voices and perspectives are ripe for exploring: Bathsheba, Tamar, Jephthah’s daughter, to name just a few. And of course Sarah, mother of Isaac - incidentally the only one in Genesis 22 for whom Isaac is an ‘only beloved son’.

What did Sarah say when she learned what Abraham had done? What were her feelings about God’s command? Jewish midrashim believe it is no coincidence that Sarah dies in Genesis 23 - in the chapter following that terrible story - they say of shock and horror. There is fertile ground within Genesis 22 for articulating another perspective on God’s command to Abraham: one which many feminist authors have focused on and in all sorts of different ways. To name just one example, Phyllis Trible has famously renamed the story ‘the sacrifice of Sarah’ - after all she is the only one is dead in its aftermath. It is not only feminist scholarship that is gathering interest in exploring the silent characters of the Bible, however. This is also becoming an area of increasing interest within Hebrew Bible mainstream scholarship.

The historian Philip Davies’, for instance, recently edited a collection called First Person Essays in Biblical Autobiography, where Jezebel, Delilah, Gomer, and Haman from the story of Esther, among others are given voice by a number of respected academics.

In his introduction, Davies writes, ‘I wish the reader of this book much joy, expect some dismay, and issue an invitation to “go and do likewise”. For I think it is by far the most rewarding, potentially subtle and readable form of biblical scholarship I have yet engaged in, whether as author, editor or reader.’ It seems there is significant scope in all sorts of ways in engaging with and exploring the Bible’s silences.

We ourselves are not simply talking about an intellectual exercise, however. We are exploring how we might hear God’s voice speaking to us when we read the Bible. We might wonder then, does this mean that we can attribute anything to the voice of God? Does this give us a carte blanche? One way which I have found helpful in thinking around this question draws on what the literary theorist Wolfgang Iser believes is going on when we read any text. Iser introduced the phrase Leerstellen (‘empty places’), arguing that these empty places exist within all texts, as the places where meaning is created. For Iser (2000:193), it is the existence of these ‘empty places’ within texts that explains why different interpretations are created even when readers are confronted with the same text because individual readers ‘fill in the gaps’ in the text their ‘own way’. In reading, they make their ‘own decision as to how the gap is to be filled’, creating often astonishingly different interpretations. A related way in which Iser explained what happens when we read is particularly helpful for our purposes. He spoke of every text having ‘fixed points’, or ‘stars’: the immovable points of the narrative or poetry, that cannot simply be ignored or wished away. We might portray the ‘fixed points’ of Genesis 22, for instance, like this:

It is these ‘stars’ that make this individual text unique. At the same time, it is for the reader to understand just how these ‘fixed points’ relate to each other. In reading, we thus begin to ‘join up the dots’ of Genesis 22 to create a ‘constellation’ - our interpretation.

This, for instance, is one possible interpretation of the text. All the fixed points have been taken into account. The reader has understood them to relate in a certain way, reading into the ‘empty places’ of the text certain meanings, which makes sense of these stars. At the same time, this is not the only possible constellation, or interpretation of the text. A different reader, on encountering the same text, but adopting a different reading strategy might create this.

Once again, all the ‘fixed points’ have been taken account of, but they have been understood to relate in a different way as the reader has interpreted the ‘empty places’ of the text.

Iser’s understanding of what happens when we read any text is helpful for our reflections on how we might seek to hear the ‘voice of God’ in the ‘empty places’ and silences of the Bible. In adopting such a reading strategy, we are simply calling particularly sharp attention to the empty places that inevitably exist in the Bible. We are not suggesting that any statement about the text is acceptable. We are not talking about moving the fixed points in the text, or pretending that they do not exist. Nor are we talking about adding other fixed points, to make the text more palatable, or useful, for our purposes. Instead we are seeking to call sharp attention to the ‘empty places’ that inevitably exist within the biblical texts as they have been handed down to us: not becoming frustrated by the absences and silences of certain characters or perspectives; nor being diverted away from their significance by the ‘fixed points’, even when these are disquieting or troubling; instead, committing ourselves to remain open to hearing God’s voice speaking within those ‘empty, wilderness places’, and to be willing to explore different possibilities.

Such an approach is, of course, open to a certain amount of risk, just as every reading strategy carries with it its own dangers. All of us are extremely adept, whatever hermeneutic we adopt, at attributing to God that which we would like to hear. This is the case whether we adopt an historical-critical method, a liberation perspective, a hermeneutic of suspicion, or a sola Scriptura approach. In seeking to hear God in silence we must, as always, guard carefully against only hearing our own echo in the ‘voice of God’.

As readers, we are not presented in this method with a carte blanche. There are clear guidelines within which we are to work, as we trace the paths of our readings. For the ‘fixed points’ of the text are nonnegotiable: they are there to be taken seriously, even if we are turning the focus of our attention to the ‘empty places’ and ‘wildernesses’ of the text as the place where meaning might be created, where the ‘voice of God’ might also be speaking to us.

A final word. This is not about a search for the text’s ultimate meaning. It is not about solving the more difficult or troubling texts of the Bible, or about deproblematizing them so that we can set them safely to one side. It is about opening them up, facing their terrors, naming them, giving voice to them, and thus discovering their complexities and multidimensional character. It is about taking them deep inside us, despite their disquieting exterior meaning, so that we can discover the sweetness of God’s voice within them where we least expect it. Or as one definition of midrash puts it, it is about ‘searching out the fullness’ of what is spoken by the Divine Voice.

Words and signs

2007-11-22T13:32:00.000Z

The theme of Communion continued to be explored on the second day of the Drenched in Grace conference in Swanwick. Rev Dr Sharon Moughtin-Mumby, who had agreed to speak on the Liturgy of the Word, was unfortunately not able to be present, but a thought-provoking talk she had written, 'Out of the Silence', was delivered on her behalf. She suggested that, in approaching the Bible, sometimes the voice of God could be found not only in the written texts but also in the gaps, rather as Elijah heard that voice not in the mighty wind or fire or earthquake but rather in a strong silence. It was in the wilderness that Jesus discerned his mission, and he was silent before Pontius Pilate. Sometimes, perhaps, it is necessary to sit with silence, not avoid painful areas and be ready to encounter God in unexpected places.

Rev Dr Louis Weil spoke challengingly on the meaning of Baptism in 'When Signs Signify: the Baptismal Covenent in its Sacramental Context'. He warned of the risk that its significance might be undermined, its theological context trivialised, if it were seen simply as reciting a set of words without any real transformation of people's lives. Conference participants then renewed their baptismal vows, reaffirming their belief in God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and pledging to continue in their practice of faith, including the apostles' teaching and fellowship, perseverance and repentance, proclamation of the Good News, seeking and serving Christ in all persons, loving one's neighbour as oneself and striving for justice and peace.

A conservative says no to schism

2007-11-22T10:05:00.000Z

Thanks to Fr. Jake, I ran across this essay:

...This past summer, Bishop Duncan instructed my wife and hundreds of other readers in the diocese to omit the prayer for Katharine. Katharine Jefferts Schori has been a frequent target for conservatives in the U.S. church ever since she was elected presiding bishop last year. Coming on the heels of the installation of an active and outspoken homosexual bishop, the elevation of a woman of liberal sympathies seemed a bridge too far for many conservatives.

It appeared at the time that omitting the prayer for Katharine was a steppingstone to where the bishop was really trying to take us -- outside of the Episcopal Church. You see, to include Katharine in the prayers was to acknowledge her office, and to acknowledge her office was to acknowledge our obligation to her...

...Secession is not the biblical pattern of resistance to flawed authority...

...On Oct. 31., the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church USA sent a letter to the bishop of Pittsburgh, directing him not to split the diocese from the denomination. Bishop Duncan replied by quoting Martin Luther, "Here I stand. I can do no other."

It's a powerful quote, but a misuse of history. Martin Luther didn't leave the Roman Catholic Church; he was kicked out. He decided to "stand" and fight. It's ironic that Bishop Duncan quoted Luther's pledge to "stand" in order to justify his intention to "walk"...

...Yes, there are times when it's necessary to leave one authority for another. When the New Testament writers were forced to deal with this issue, they concluded that they were compelled to obey higher authority at all times, except when it commanded them to disobey God. Roman Emperors were monstrous beasts. The church preached against them and prayed for them to repent, but Christians still obeyed the law. It wasn't until Rome ordered them to stop preaching the gospel and to offer sacrifices to Caesar that the early church was forced to disobey.

By analogy, New Hampshire can install a whole pride of gay bishops, but we don't break our oath of loyalty to the Episcopal Church until they order us to start installing them here.

Until then, the pattern of David and Jesus holds: Be faithful. Be patient. Be active in good works. And be in prayer for all in authority ... "for Katharine, our presiding bishop; Robert and Henry, our bishops; and Jay, our priest, I pray. Lord, hear our prayer."

This articulates what I've been saying for some time. No one is forcing Pittsburgh out of ECUSA, other than Bob Duncan. No one says GLBT bishops need to minister there. What's Duncan's hurry to leave, and to do so in a way that scapegoats others?

One point that also seems to be worth raising: I find it shocking that a bishop would ask people not to pray for another. Can someone confirm if this is true? And, for the sake of discussion, suppose I felt that Bishop Katharine were my enemy -- would it not behoove me to pray for her all the more? That, Bishop Duncan, is what the Bible says.

Our prayer book at various places asks us to pray for our Presiding Bishop. On what authority do you, as a diocesan bishop, pretend to say that the prayer book is to be read willy-nilly? Do you see the irony of accusing progressives of selective reading while you practice the same? Or are rubrics fiction, like ECUSA itself? This all points to the ridiculous place we now find ourselves. Reality itself seems to be on the wane, so reasoned discourse becomes increasingly difficult. Alas.

Canterbury supports realignment in Texas?

2007-11-22T09:51:00.000Z

The Living Church supplies this:

Bishop Frank Lyons of Bolivia, a guest at the Diocese of Fort Worth's annual convention, told delegates and visitors that Archbishop Gregory Venables had "received a positive response" from Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams last September when he informed Archbishop Williams that his province would likely extend a formal invitation to Fort Worth and other U.S. dioceses.

If this report is accurate, it would contain surprising news. I find it difficult to believe that Rowan would lend unqualified support to this move. As others have noted, it's easy to misread Rowan -- we need look no further than the recent confusion around his letter to Bishop Howe of Florida. When we see something in writing from Lambeth Palace, we'll have something substantive to digest.

For now, I caution progressives not to worry too much, and I caution those in Fort Worth and the Southern Cone not to imagine that they have support for their secessionist plans. I also suggest that we should wonder why Bishop Iker might care about the Archbishop of Canterbury; if ECUSA is a fantasy, as Iker says, then why should he think the Anglican Communion is real?

Audio from Jenny Te Paa address

2007-11-22T00:57:00.000Z

Click here to download audio of the address given tonight by Dr. Jenny Te Paa at the opening of the Inclusive Church conference, "Drenched in Grace." (Note that the volume level is a bit low. I'll work on that as we continue to post audio from the conference. I think it's easy enough to hear what's being said -- just turn up your volume.)

Read the official statement on the opening address here.

Jenny Te Paa condemns the 'reach of enmity' among Anglicans

2007-11-21T22:36:00.000Z

Inclusive Church statement from "Drenched in Grace"

The first Inclusive Church conference opened today at the Hayes Conference Centre in Derbyshire, England with an address by Dr Jenny Plane Te Paa. In a strong speech, Te Paa reminded us “how pervasive the reach of enmity has become amongst us.” She urged us “not to notice the bad behaviour of the few, but the good behaviour of the many.” Calling to mind the great humanitarian needs of the world, Te Paa lamented our obsession with drawing lines that exclude, which is distracting us from the enormous suffering so many people face. We must not “fret and fight” while people are literally dying.

Te Paa is Principal of the College of St John the Evangelist in Auckland, New Zealand, was a member of the 2003 Lambeth Commission, and assisted in the St Augustine’s Seminar responsible for planning the detailed content for the forthcoming Lambeth Conference 2008.

The Revd Canon Giles Goddard, chair of Inclusive Church, said, “We are not a pressure group of the like-minded.” He added, “We are ordinary Anglicans who love our church, and we are deeply concerned by the way in which the effort to exclude is overtaking the calling to live the Gospel.”

180 people have gathered here at a time in which many people are concerned that the generous tolerance which has characterized Anglicanism is under serious threat from those who wish to divide the church. The conference includes participants from all parts of Great Britain and throughout the Anglican Communion.

Inclusive Church is a growing network of Anglicans from across the Anglican Communion working to celebrate the traditional diversity of Anglicanism. For more information, visit our website at www.inclusivechurch.net.

Contact details:
The Revd Canon Giles Goddard, 07762 373 674
The Revd Philip Chester, 07515 815 710

Each of us was given grace

2007-11-21T21:57:00.000Z

‘Each of us was given grace’ was the theme of Dr Jenny Plane Te Paa’s keynote talk on the first day of the Drenched in Grace conference in Swanwick, England. Dr Te Paa, principal of a theological college in New Zealand, has been extremely active in the worldwide Anglican Communion, including convening the Steering Committee of the International Anglican Peace and Justice Network, and spoke movingly from her own experience rather than resorting to abstract theology to make a point.

She described the network of relationships which surround indigenous peoples such as her own community where all have a place and none are permanently excluded. The church more widely might have something to learn from such practices, she suggested. She also highlighted the needs of a world where terrible suffering was all too common, especially among women and children, and the risk of being distracted by power struggles among mainly male leaders from what was most important. Many people continue to serve the church in a loving, grace-filled manner in their own neighbourhoods, regardless of the political disputes taking place, and their witness should not be forgotten.

Some conference participants raised questions about the risks of avoiding confrontation and the responsibility to defend the vulnerable, and Dr Te Paa made it clear that in her view the political and pastoral were inextricable. My understanding is that she was trying to convey the importance of not being so absorbed by much-publicised controversies among senior figures that the workings of grace in Christians’ daily lives go unacknowledged.

Clearing the deck

2007-11-21T17:30:00.000Z

I'm at Drenched in Grace now. You'll hear more about that soon (tonight, even), but I thought I should clear up my bloglines backlog (or should I say "backblog") first. Lots of stuff has happened recently, during my silence. No time to comment on all of it, so here are a few brief random rants.

The grip on reality is disappearing with a few bishops, it seems. Bishop Iker of Forth Worth says there is no national Episcopal Church. Really? Which canons authorized him to become bishop? Who has he been pontificating to at House of Bishops' meetings. This commentary gets it about right.
In another slip from Anglican reality, the Diocese of Pittsburgh now considers itself independent, able to absorb parishes from any place on the planet at will. The first reading of a constitutional change was approved. Despite a clear conflict with the (real, actually) national canons, Pittsburgh thinks they can do their own thing. And they will feign shock -- shock! -- when ecclesiastical discipline is enforced.
In another fun chapter in the Iker-Duncan saga, Duncan is now pretending that he is like Martin Luther. (How he can be both a pope with conclaves and a reformer is beyond me!) Of course, the problem is that Luther did not leave his church. He took a bold stand and faced the consequences. The far right is trying to redefine reality to get themselves off the legal and ecclesiastical hook. It won't work, I'm afraid.
Rowan set off a few flares with his correspondence with Bishop Howe. Like much else in Anglicanism there days, people on both ends of the spectrum reacted, apparently without reading what Rowan actually wrote. It turns out that Rowan believes that parishes are not independent bodies, free agents able to move about at will. No surprise there, at least for me.
The province of the Southern Cone seems to have grand ideas. Now they're vying with Pittsburgh to take in cranks the world throughout. Who will me the last purple-wearer standing? Archishop Venables or The Pope of Pittsburgh. (Notice that I've refrained from using the title of some wags: The Queen of Quittsburgh.)
Lots of news from Canada, where people are moving ahead with inclusion, despite the Communion concerns of some. ECUSA leaders will welcome the company, I'm sure. Meanwhile, may I remind everyone that SSBs are happening regularly in Rowan's own province. So if Lambeth Palace is going to point a finger at people for carrying out SSBs, remember that when you point one finger at someone else, three point back at you.
Oh, in closing for now, I should also point out that people on the left can lose the grip on reality as well. Let's all remember to be charitable, or at least cheerily cheeky.

OK, I'm off to eat dinner. Then Jenny Plane Te Paa (of ACC fame) is addressing our conference. Look for news -- and a photo, perhaps -- here later tonight.

Back in the blogosphere -- in style

2007-11-20T22:15:00.000Z

After a too-lengthy hiatus, I would like to return to the blogosphere with the following item. Click the graphic to enjoy.

Why return with this bit of cheeky humor? Because I think we can only laugh at the ridiculous things going on the Anglican Communion right now. I'll say more about that in a future post, tonight or tomorrow morning. Also, there are good things going on. To wit, I'm in England to attend Drenched in Grace. Expect many posts on that topic.

(Before you conservative readers get worked up over "Drenched in Grace" like you got worked up over "Jesus our mother", this phrase comes from the Canon of Orthodox, Approved Theology. You see, we orthodox progressives like to read -- and make reference to people like Richard Hooker and Julian of Norwich.)

Goddard to Goddard

2007-11-05T09:32:00.000Z

Rev. Dr. Andrew Goddard and I have been corresponding with each other for several months - Andrew takes a conservative position on questions on human sexuality and I take a position which I think is orthodox but some would question that! We've recently been talking more about the situation facing the Anglican Communion - the correspondence can be seen at Goddard to Goddard and comments here would be welcome -

Giles

Save the primates

2007-10-27T10:38:00.000+01:00

My name is Savi Hensman, I am active in the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement and Inclusive Church, I live in London and I will be contributing to the blog from time to time.

‘Third of primates “under threat”’, a BBC news headline yesterday announced. This was not about the struggles in the Anglican Communion, but instead about the threat to apes, monkeys and other (mainly four-legged) primates because of the destruction of their habitats. These animals are not only beautiful and precious in their own right but also contribute to the understanding of human diversity, yet many are at risk of extinction because of human carelessness and greed. Another report, by the United Nations Environment Programme, highlights a crisis which involves extinction of species, climate change and excessive consumption of the world’s resources by the rich, among other factors. Some industrialists have objected to firm measures to cut emissions, and there has been an alarming lack of political will. Yet millions die each year because they cannot get access to clean air and water, and humankind as a whole is in peril if urgent action is not taken.

Senior clergy will no doubt continue to debate who should wield most power, which types of Christians should be included and on what terms. Yet those of us who are laypeople and parish clergy have been called by One who is even greater than a roomful of archbishops, assured of our worth and sent out to be the church, in an increasingly imperilled world. Working with other people of goodwill, we can perhaps halt the destruction before it is too late. So let us go forth and help save the primates!

Catching up: more of the same

2007-10-21T03:52:00.000+01:00

As I mentioned earlier today, this is one of those posts wherein I try to comment on many recent goings-on in the Communion (that happened while I was neglecting this blog in favor of parish concerns).

In no particular order:

This is no longer about only the Diocese of New Hampshire. Now we have significant news (good news, to my thinking) from several places. California wants to move ahead with same-sex blessings. So does Montreal. And Ottawa too. This complicates the conversation, but I think it also reminds the world that the proverbial horse is out of the barn. Whatever resolution we're going to reach needs to happen, because we're not going back on GLBT issues.
The Joint Standing Committee gave the ECUSA HoB a passing grade. Jim Naughton has a good commentary. What I find more interesting is the reaction from the right. When they think the Communion authorities are leaning their direction, we hear, "Polity! Authority! Discipline!" When the results are not what they want, we hear "Bizarre! Conflict of interest!" Nonsense. Bishops consult one another. It's what they're supposed to do. There was no conflict of interest, just consultation of interest. If you want to talk about conflict of interest, that would be a primate leaving the Primates' Meeting to consult with his secessionist plotting friends.
The Archbishop of Capetown says it like it is:

This has not been an easy road to travel. Much remains to be done and we must continue to strive earnestly together to find the path ahead. The experiences of my own Province, both through the terrible divisions of the apartheid years, and in the differences of our earliest history (which contributed to the holding of the first Lambeth Conference), have repeatedly demonstrated that holding fast to one another yields lasting fruit, while separation solves very little. Our God is the God of reconciliation, not of division, and we can take courage that he will continue to guide our way forward. I am sure that as we continue to abide in Jesus Christ, our Saviour and Lord, in whom lies the gift of unity, that we will find ourselves, our churches, our world-wide Communion, refined and strengthened, for the life of worship, witness and service to which we are called.

The HoB statement was not without its problems, as Lisa Fox notes. We can't deny sacraments to people while we claim that our church includes them fully.
Bishop Iker of Forth Worth says "We have Concluded there is no Future for us in The Episcopal Church." Please. Enough. I have grown weary of the attempt to make Every Instant A Dramatic Moment. Drama. Crisis. Doom. If you plan to leave, just leave already, and let us get on with the Gospel. If you want to stay, we'd like that. In the latter case, we need you to talk with us and work with us, not to threaten us and cajole us.
Canon (or Cardinal-elect) David Anderson has made an astonishing discovery: "With ears carefully turned to Lambeth, we find that Rowan Williams is determined that Lambeth 2008 will absolutely take place, and on his terms." This "discovery" is astonishing only because it maintains the reality of Lambeth Conferences since 1867. What did Canon Anderson imagine was going to happen? Was he hoping that Archbishop Rowan would phone him up for thoughts about who to invite, which font to use on the invitations, and whether to ask for the "Favour" or the "Favor" of a reply? Again, I say: please. Say after me: The Lambeth Conference is a gathering held at the discretion and design of the Archbishop of Canterbury. If you don't like it, AAC, maybe you should hold your own gathering. Oh, right. You're already doing that.
Finally, ECUSA's Presiding Bishop gave a lengthy video interview on Tuesday. I found most it to be compelling on honest. I had some problems with one bit, and so did Lisa Fox. Lisa had submitted a question asking how Bishop Katharine had suffered in all this, as she sometimes says. The answer was this: "Personally, what I suffer – the crucifixion I suffer – is not being able to include the fullness of the gifts of my gay and lesbian brothers and sisters – that they are not yet able to live those out in all orders of ministry in this church." I'll say the same thing I said to The Pope of Pittsburgh: stop. Don't talk about crucifixion. No one is dying in ECUSA because of this issue. No heterosexual people are really suffering too much in all this. Our GLBT Christian friends are suffering the most, in some places risking their lives just to be who they are. Please refrain from the dramatic language, which is neither helpful nor accurate.

Could Dumbledore come to your church?

2007-10-20T16:06:00.001+01:00

I've been swamped by parish work, and -- as regular readers of this blog will know -- the blogosphere takes a back seat to the needs of the people I serve as a parish priest. Things have slowed a bit, so later today, I'll post a "catch-up" about the goings-on of the Anglican Communion and I'll reflect on breakfast with Lord Carey of Clifton. (Well, it wasn't just me, but lots of clergy here in Rhode Island.)

For now, however, I was struck by this BBC news story:

Harry Potter author JK Rowling has revealed that one of her characters, Hogwarts school headmaster Albus Dumbledore, is gay. She made her revelation to a packed house in New York's Carnegie Hall on Friday, as part of her US book tour.

She took audience questions and was asked if Dumbledore found "true love". "Dumbledore is gay," she said, adding he was smitten with rival Gellert Grindelwald, who he beat in a battle between good and bad wizards long ago. The audience gasped, then applauded. "I would have told you earlier if I knew it would make you so happy," she said.

On the one hand, it's odd to care. After all, Dumbledore is a fictional character. But it will be interesting to see how Christians around the world will respond to this news. Will the Harry Potter series be listed on an index of banned books now? Will people perceive that this series is somehow subverting youth? I expect both of these things to happen, and I hope I'll have the charity to treat such dire pronouncements as fodder for humor.

Here's the serious side of this. As in life, lots of people found Dumbledore to be a captivating character, before they had any idea (or perhaps before Rowling had any idea) that he was gay. Readers loved Dumbledore for who he was as a character. His sexuality, really, was unimportant.

At the risk of tedium, may I be the seven millionth blogger to point out that this is how Christians might do well to treat one another? Imagine our church's future if we treated people as people first, and as sexual beings second. What could we do if we weren't worried so much about who sleeps with whom? This is not to say that our sexuality is unimportant, but surely it's not the most important thing on which we should spend our energy.

If Dumbledore materialized tomorrow in your church, would he be welcome? That's the point of InclusiveChurch -- to remind us that all are welcome in God's church. Dumbledore, c'mon in!

Process and Loyalty

2007-10-08T08:03:00.001+01:00

After Lambeth 1998 a complex procedure of consultation, reference and reconciliation was created under the broad heading of the “Windsor process”. Despite original intentions, it has been given a quasi-legal status, with the Primates taking upon themselves the role of judge and arbiter in developments in the Anglican Communion.

As part of the process, the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) was created, to consider responses by national churches which came into the Windsor ambit. The Joint Standing Committee has found that the Episcopal Church (TEC) has fully met the requests made of it by the Windsor Report and subsequently.

We are unable to understand how the conservative groups who are objecting both to the TEC statement and the JSC can justify their position.

These groups led the field in turning the Windsor report into a quasi-legal document. They consistently demanded that TEC follow the structures created after Lambeth 1998. TEC has done so. The Instruments of Unity have been brought into play. A response has been produced which is both generous and sacrificial. The TEC Bishops have been careful to follow the procedure laid out, despite the fact that it was imposed without their consent.

The eruption of complaint and objection can be ascribed to only one thing: the conclusions reached are not those the conservatives would have wished. They therefore wish either to change the structures, by demanding an extra Primates’ meeting; or to sabotage the Instruments of Unity by refusing their invitations to Lambeth.

It’s important to be clear. Many of those who are objecting to the JSC’s report want nothing less than the destruction of traditional, classical, broad Anglicanism. They will be satisfied only with the expulsion of TEC from the Communion, and the re-creation of the Church of England as a quasi-Calvinist, narrow sect. The intention behind the imposition of the Windsor process was, for them, to enable this to happen; as it hasn’t, they make further demands.

The sense behind calling another Primates’ meeting completely escapes us. A majority of Primates support the direction the Communion is taking at the moment - towards listening and mutual comprehension and away from narrow exclusion. For two reasons – either because they are committed to an inclusive church, or because they have much more important things on their mind – poverty, starvation and war, for instance. The last meeting of the Primates was, because of the behaviour of the Archbishop of Nigeria, nearly a fiasco. A vocal minority would not, this time, be allowed to dictate terms to the Communion.

Similarly regarding the Covenant. The Primus of Scotland (one of Inclusive Church’s Patrons) observed recently that the attendance by the Archbishop of the West Indies at extra-provincial consecrations removed any remaining credibility from the Covenant negotiations. It is hard to see how anything meaningful would be gained by extending discussions on the Covenant as proposed.

Some perspective is needed. The moratorium undertaken by TEC could usefully be extended to the conservative groups. We have too much posturing and politicking and too little listening. The responses made have been scarcely biblical; commentators would do well to reflect on Acts 15 and Galatians 3.Conservative groups need, somehow, to find a way to acknowledge that those of us who seek a more inclusive church are motivated by our profound and committed love for Jesus Christ. We seek a deeper understanding of the work of the Spirit in the world, now, today. We are committed to the Gospel as it has been received in our tradition, and we will carry on preaching this Gospel.

Some people – for example, those who have signed the Anglican Communion Institute’s recent statement– appear to have decided to remain within the Communion rather than wandering into the wilderness alongside Anglican Mainstream and “Common Cause”. We welcome their decision. But they should understand that there are consequences which come with that. It is a reasonable expectation that senior clergy – which includes Bishops in the Church of England - will show loyalty to the Archbishop of Canterbury; will accept the results of due process; and will work with those results creatively. The loyalty demonstrated by many of the objectors is at best vestigial.

We hope that the dust will be allowed to settle, and that conservative groups will, sooner rather than later, recognise that a serious and meaningful engagement with their brothers and sisters across the Communion is the only way forward. In the words of the JSC: “The process of mutual listening and conversation needs to be intensified. It is only by living in communion that we can live out our vocation to be Communion.”

Inclusive Church has organised a conference - Drenched in Grace – for 21st – 23rd November 2007 as part of our commitment to a renewed confidence in the Anglican way. Excellent speakers from New Zealand, the US and the UK will address questions of biblical interpretation, tradition and culture. We believe it will be an inspiring conference offering hope to all who celebrate classical Anglican theology. For further information visit www.inclusivechurch.net

The current situation, in one drawing

2007-10-03T00:42:00.000+01:00

Yes, a picture is clearly still worth a thousand words. Quite possibly, even more than that. I give you a drawing by Dave Walker at The Cartoon Blog, which neatly summarizes the situation in the Anglican Communion these days.

A Kenyan's response to the ECUSA HoB

2007-10-03T00:20:00.000+01:00

Just to remind our readers that this is all more complicated than we are sometimes led to believe, here is a snippet from one Kenyan's reaction to the recent statements from ECUSA's House of Bishops. This is powerful stuff, and the writer makes a powerful argument. Read this excerpt, and then go read the whole thing. Pass it along to your friends.

The American Episcopal church has backed down to preserve the unity of the Anglican family worldwide. It has promised to exercise restraint with respect to the ordination of any more gay or lesbian bishops. And it has promised no longer to authorise the use of rites to bless same-sex marriages.

African Anglican bishops are, for the most part, celebrating. As far as they are concerned, they have won a major victory regarding interpretation of religious texts relating to homosexuality. Kenya’s archbishop has gone so far as to say that the capitulation is not enough — he is demanding no less than full “repentance.”

My personal opinion, for what it is worth, is that the African Anglican hierarchy itself has something to repent. It has proceeded as though African gay men and lesbians do not exist, even though some are also members of its flock. It has endorsed the prejudice and stereotypes about African gay men and lesbians — namely that they are both “unAfrican” and “unholy.” ...

What the African Anglican bishops have essentially said is that African citizens are “right” in their prejudices and stereotypes about African gay communities. It is thus the African Anglican hierarchy that should “repent.” If we do not stop and check ourselves, we can rest assured that the damage ultimately caused will not just be to the Anglican family worldwide. The damage will be to our own.

Don't believe it when people say the "Global South" says this or that. There are people in the Global South pushing for change, just as there are people in the US resisting change. And, mark my words, there will be Global South bishops at Lambeth, even if +Peter Akinola throws his own party elsewhere.

Come to think of it, maybe some priests should get themselves ordained as bishops to serve people whose pastoral needs are not being met in Kenya.

(Hat tip to epiScope.)

Savi Hensman on the pace of change

2007-10-02T16:55:00.000+01:00

As we move toward a more inclusive church (and the extreme reactions on the right indicate that they know this is where we're headed), it's hard to know when to push and when to wait. In the US, we contend with the tensions of our own internal unity, along with the tensions with other cultures with vastly different attitudes toward human sexuality. The same is true in many cultures, as we balance competing groups and interests.

Here's a bit of a recent essay by Savi Hensman:

Patience is of course needed, and the wisdom to choose when to move slowly and when to move fast. Yet there are serious risks in accepting the human-made barriers and hierarchies which keep people apart. Apart from the harm done to those who are excluded, the spiritual harm people do to themselves when they marginalise or stereotype others should be considered, given the close connection between love of God and love of neighbour. All of us have perhaps benefited at one time or another by being jolted into recognising a common humanity with those whom we would at one time have looked down on or barely noticed.

Greater understanding may arise from observing a previously unimagined reality. For example people who disliked the notion of 'interracial marriage', when given the opportunity to see how love could flourish between a couple one of whom was black and the other white, could be prompted to rethink their assumptions. This only became possible because some people were bold enough not to hide what others at first found offensive.

Indeed, why is that when we look back at struggles for justice or inclusion (arguments over slavery, racism, interracial marriage, divorce, the status of women), we see clearly the fear and privilege of those who resisted the forward movement? Why can't more of us see this in our present struggles? How do we balance moving ahead prophetically with persuading those who might be inclined to move if given more time? How to we decide when to "leave behind" some people, if we have to do that?

These are hard questions, and I'm grateful for Savi's writing on this complex subject.

Pares inter pares

2007-10-01T08:11:00.001+01:00

Meanwhile in England we have no popes. But we have had two Archbishops (as well as our normal complement) at the request of Inclusive Church. The Archbishop of Mexico and the Primus of Scotland - both speaking at a number of events around the country (well, in London and Manchester!).

You can read Bishop Idris' talk here. And very good it is too. His main point was that "Anglicanism is a system of doctrine and practice upheld by those in communion with the See of Canterbury." That's it. Nothing else. His take on the Covenant is that it's the last thing we need; we don't need more structure, we need less. A simple way to ensure that Lambeth is successful would be, he thought, to ask all the Bishops to confirm (a) that they will be there and (b) that they will take Communion. End of subject. "Actually" he says "I can suggest the wording of a Covenant like this - " As sisters and brothers in Christ we pledge ourselves to remain together in spite of any differences that arise” "

Meanwhile Archbishop Carlos of Mexico spoke about the history of the Anglican Church in Mexico. Like those of Brazil, Cuba and El Salvador, it grew out of a sense that that the formality and hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church presented too narrow a sense of the Gospel; the Anglican churches in all those countries are indigenous, and adopted Anglicanism when they recognised that it offered the breadth, conviction and diversity they needed. Sound familiar? His talk will be posted soon.

Archbishop Carlos began his sermon in Southwark Cathedral with the question "Anglicans in Mexico? I am happy to answer with a joyful 'yes' " At the end of his visit he told me that the impression of the Church of England in Mexico is that it is dying..... so he's delighted to be able to go back to Mexico and say "Anglicans in England? I am happy to answer with a joyful 'yes' "

More about their visit later.....

Habemus papam!

2007-09-30T04:10:00.000+01:00

As shown in this photo, which appeared in the Church Times, white smoke has been seen in Pittsburgh. It appears that we have a pope!

TPOP (note this, "The Pope Of Pittsburgh," the latest acronym to infest blogospheria Anglicana) must be just a wee bit disappointed by the lack of media coverage. Save this blog, and a few other Christian media sources, it seems that His Holiness was covered only in Virtue Online. I'm not sure what to make of that. It's certainly odd company for this blog to keep!

What does the smoke mean? Well, it may augur a new papacy of Pure Undefiled True Religion, or it may be some kind of sign of bad grammar or sloppy theology. Here's the opening of their statement (or should I be calling this an "encyclical" now?):

In the Name of God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, to whom belong all might, majesty, dominion and glory.

This was ripped apart by a commenter on T19:

The proper Trinitarian invocation would be "In the Name of God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" or "In the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." The annunciation used in this communique, however, "God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit" has an inherently modalistic ring to it, which is precisely why it is not a part of classical theological exposition of the Trinity in either East or West. ...
I might be more apt to forgive such sloppiness if the grammatical structure of the sentence did not only amplify the theological problem. The grammatical plural "to whom belong" (as opposed to the singular "to whom belongs" further creates the impression that we’re talking about three gods or one God who manifests himself in three modes) rather than the One God. The Holy Trinity is properly referred to as "he" in good orthodox theology, not as "they"!

So, given that auspicious start—and the fact that not a single one of the 51 unnamed bishops who reputedly signed it did not catch such a basic theological error—I’ve got to start with a healthy skepticism on the rest…

Ouch. And that was only the invocation. The statement itself may propel some ECUSA bishops to resign soon, if they are loyal to their ordination vows, says Mark Harris.

What good can come of this? Vestment companies and church sign makers will do quite well. I expect airlines and lawyers to make out pretty well on this one. Sadly, parishioners will not do so well, distracted from the mission of the church by an argument over a minor point of moral theology. The crux of this disagreement, by the way, was not mentioned by Jesus Christ, was hardly addressed in the church fathers, and does not appear as a point of faith in any of the historic creeds.

It's all sad. But, hey, at least TPOP won't have to worry about skipping any more work trips with his fellow bishops.

Two primates speak for inclusion

2007-09-30T03:38:00.000+01:00

ENS carries this brief today on a conference that InclusiveChurch sponsored at Manchester Cathedral in the UK.

Archbishop Carlos Touche-Porter of Mexico and Primus Idris Jones of the Scottish Episcopal Church are taking part in a conference, titled "Celebrating Anglican Diversity," to uphold the Anglican tradition of open and inclusive theology and consider the future course of the Anglican Communion.

Touche-Porter is a staunch advocate of full inclusion and diversity within the Church, especially in support of gay and lesbian Christians. "Inclusion is a reality in the Anglican Church, despite reports to the contrary," he said. "I am very much looking forward to being in the U.K. as part of our preparations for a positive Lambeth Conference."

"It was very obvious at the recent meeting of Anglican Primates that the vast majority wish to stay with an Anglican church that is open and welcoming and prepared to live with difference," said Jones. "This is Anglican mainstream and we have to make it clear that it represents [the] majority opinion among church leaders. Attempts to try to turn the Communion into something that is controlled from the center, with expulsion the result of disagreement, will fail."

You can read more about the conference here. Stay tuned for further reports.

Stained glass ceiling, busted again

2007-09-30T03:26:00.001+01:00

From today's Sydney Morning Herald:

The Anglican Church's highest court has cleared the way for women bishops - but the Archbishop of Sydney, Peter Jensen, will carry on the fight against them.
The Appellate Tribunal, by a 4-3 majority, found there is no constitutional barrier to women becoming bishops in the Australian church. The decision could lead one day to a woman leading the Australian church.

The Church of England, mother church of the world's 77 million Anglicans, voted a year ago to consecrate women bishops.

But the Australian decision to break the stained glass ceiling is likely to exacerbate divisions in church ranks. The national church is considering ways to provide oversight to traditionalists unwilling to accept women bishops.

This will pose a big problem for +Peter Jensen. Will he spend his time trying to hold back the tide of history, or will he push ahead with his radical innovation to allow lay presidency at the Eucharist?

Anyway, I rejoice that another province of the Anglican Communion will soon enjoy the ministry of women bishops.

(Tip of the miter to Thinking Anglicans. The news link came from a commenter.)

Quaking in humility

2007-09-28T03:59:00.001+01:00

I don't know what to say. Actors crave Oscars. Scientists crave the Nobel. Smart people want the MacArthur. Bloggers want to be a MadPriest "Hero of the blogosphere".

Yes, dear reader, it's true. This blog has been named. We'll try to live up to the high honor.

Breaking news on the Presumptive Pontiff

2007-09-28T03:39:00.000+01:00

On Tuesday, I wrote about the Pope of Pittsburgh. You know who I mean. There have been some developments.

First, Raspberry Rabbit has uncovered a photo of the presumptive pontiff. I guess RR snuck into the conclave with his camera. I'll bet dollars to doughnuts his disguise included a purple shirt, which probably made the whole escapade easier. Anyway, enjoy the photo.

Then, over at Thinking Anglicans, and eagle-eyed reader spotted earlier evidence that this papacy was long in the making. Right there on the ACN website, you can enjoy a pallium-clad bishop. At least that's what it looks like. I didn't think we'd had one of those in Anglicanism since, say, 1558. But, hey, if you're starting up your own church, I guess you get to pick your own vesture.

Since neither T19 nor SF seems to have had a word about the conclave since it opened, I'll continue to offer this space as the sole outlet for news developments. Of course, don't be upset when most of the updates concern sartorial matters. What does this have to do with an "inclusive church," you ask? Well, I favor the inclusion of people who like to play dress-up and who like to play church (with the "church" being the Sistine Chapel).

Stumbling forward

2007-09-28T03:16:00.000+01:00

I wrote about clarity just before the HoB statements. The folks on the right really liked what I had to say. I hope that they understand my plea for clarity applied not only to the left, but to the right. Over on Stand Firm a few weeks ago, I was savaged for calling for transparency on the right.

In case all those T19 and SF readers finding their way here now wonder, it is my 100% firm conviction that the church is blessed by the presence and ministry of GLBT Christians. I long for the day when our church is inclusive, in every way, of people without regard to their sexual orientation. I am convinced that this is in keeping with the Bible and with the traditions of the church.

Where I part ways from some progressives is my own sense that how we get there will have much to do with our relationships with our global partners in mission. I think it would be tragic if ECUSA became separated from other provinces. We need their spiritual witness, and they need our witness of inclusion. There is great cost to our whole church (and especially to GLBT Christians) in our current path. I grieve that. But there is even greater cost if we say to moderate Anglicans, "we have no need of you."

What of the Akinolites? We won't please them. No matter what. If we demoted +Gene Robinson to acolyte, uttered imprecatory liturgies instead of SSBs, and resume usage of the 1928 prayer book, that crowd would still not be happy. They, simply put, have no more use for the catholic episcopate or an Anglican sensibility at this point than I have use for pallia and conclaves.

I think our bishops have spoken well (with a caveat to come in a future posting). They spoke with unusual clarity. They spoke with candor. They spoke with astonishing near-unanimity.

Is their allowance for the place of LGBTs in the church our final destination? I hope not. Will we be able to stay in conversation with the entire Communion as we walk forward together? I think so. This is not our ideal place, but I think we have continued to stumble ahead in a forward direction in this earthly pilgrimage.

The missing item in the HoB statement

2007-09-26T13:05:00.000+01:00

Over at T19, we find this, in a posting titled, "From the Bishops in New Orleans, a Key Deafening Silence on one Subject the Primates Addressed":

From the Tanzania Communique:

The Primates urge the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation. We also urge both parties to give assurances that no steps will be taken to alienate property from The Episcopal Church without its consent or to deny the use of that property to those congregations.

They said not a word about it. Not one.

Yes, that is missing. I wish they had addressed the subject, and I'll be interested to learn why not over the next few days. For now, may I just point out that the mention of pernicious lawsuits is a red herring. The conservatives always seem eager to move right past the preceding fact, which is that they're trying to take things that don't belong to them.

Example: suppose I donate a new Gospel book to the parish I serve. I move on to the next parish, and I think, "Gee, I really like that book. I think I'll take it with me." That's stealing, which is addressed quite clearly in the Bible as wrong. Now if I work out a deal with the parish ("It was a bit scuffed up, so we'll give it to you for a modest donation.") then I can remove it legally. It's like that with churches. We're not a congregational church, and these congregations need to get over their victim complex on this one. Don't try to steal, and you won't run afoul of the law.

MadPriest on the HoB

2007-09-26T13:01:00.000+01:00

I often turn to MadPriest for a good dose of irreverent levity. This morning I was not disappointed with his graphical take on the HoB statement. However, I was moved by his prose response as well.

Okay, gay Christians are being asked, yet again, to suffer for expediency's sake and this is an evil that the liberal bishops of TEC will be called to account for. However, this ongoing debate has forced the issue of the injustice being perpetrated against gay Christians out from under the carpet. Even in my backwater diocese in England, intelligent clergy and laity are talking about gay people in an open and sympathetic way, which was not happening before Gene's consecration. TEC's recent history has made such people face up to the reality of the situation and to think about it.

However, most important of all, Christian deviants and their supporters are so much stronger, so much more confident, so much more convinced of the righteousness of their "manner of life," than they were before all this began. We have made friends and contacts that will last forever. We would give our very lives for each other. You cannot put a genii like that back into the bottle.

We have come together because of love. Those who seek our oppression have come together because of hatred. Love will conquer all.

Indeed, MadPriest. Love will triumph. Tomorrow would be nicer than next week, wouldn't it?

The extra mile

2007-09-26T09:45:00.000+01:00

I woke up this morning to hear the BBC say that the Episcopal Church had "suspended the consecration of gay bishops". My heart sank at the thought that perhaps the Bishops in New Orleans had suddenly been pressurised to take a much more conservative line than they have been previously. So I was relieved when, over breakfast, I read the Statement itself. It seems to me and to those I've spoken to in the UK that the Bishops have done a good thing. They have gone the extra mile to meet ++Rowan's desire to hold the Communion together and to keep talking. Clearly the moratorium continues and that's a big price to pay - clearly the ministry of LGBT clergy cannot yet be fully affirmed and that's a huge price too. And clearly SSB's are not yet to become routine parts of the ministry of local churches although I welcome the recognition that local pastoral needs must be recognised.

But under the Statement discussion and dialogue can continue. That's the important thing, conclaves and councils in Pittsburgh notwithstanding! It may be that there is a splintering, and a few churches in the US decide to go their own way under the Southern Cone or wherever else. If t'were done, tis well t'were done quickly. The result of that would be that those who remain are committed to working TOGETHER and trying to understand each other. I hope that the Lambeth Conference (including Gene) will be a place of growth; we at IC are looking forward to working with people from all over the world to try to make it so.

I'm reading "Exclusion and Embrace" at the moment by Miroslav Volf; it's a brilliant book. At its heart is the need for each to recognise the other, as the father recognised the prodigal son from far off. And if we can start to do that, then God willing we'll make progress towards acknowledging the full humanity before God of all Christians. And then we can get on with the mission of preaching the Gospel.

First thoughts on the HoB statement

2007-09-26T05:07:00.000+01:00

As I wrote earlier, I spent most of the evening with the Altar Guild in the parish I serve. Less dramatic than the trembling Anglican Communion, but infinitely more profound. Now that we've solved problems ranging from Advent greens to crufty holy water, from new lectionary books to old microphones, I'm prepared to return to blogospheria Anglicana.

I've had a very quick look at the HoB's statement, and an even quicker look at some other early reactions. Taking Kendall Harmon's advice to heart, I'm going to sleep on this before I write too much. That said, a few thoughts. Sorry for the shorthand and jargon -- will have more to say tomorrow.

This statement was less verbose than I expected.
I'm grateful for their clarity on B033, even though I believe that we should not deny the possibility of the Holy Spirit calling a GLBT person as a bishop. For now, I think this is a sound answer to the primates' requests, and it should keep us in the conversation. We needed to do that, I think.
I think their SSB response is more of the same fudge, but it's just a bit less fudgy this time. Our bishops have said, again, that they haven't authorized official rites (i.e. published liturgies), but they are more clearly acknowledging the pastoral response (i.e. SSBs in parishes) that is taking place. This satisfies the letter of the law in the primates' requests, but it won't satisfy hard-line primates who want a total cessation of SSBs.
The bishops were clear in their wish for an immediate end to incursions from other provinces. I wonder if they'll consider discipline against their own number who have traveled to Africa to consecrate some of these bishops.
Their mention of Bishop Gene Robinson's exclusion from Lambeth seemed about right -- duly noted, and not unduly demanding.
Their support of the Presiding Bishop is clear, as well as their support for the latest DEPO (with a bit of ALPO thrown in?) scheme.
This was all more clear than I would have expected. I wish the language included more scriptural references, but I think they were trying to economize words.
I hope there's no minority report from the left. That would really undermine the potential goodwill that this statement will generate with moderate primates. On the other hand, the minority report from the right is now taking place in Pittsburgh. I expect mass defections very soon.
Somehow the bishops have managed to answer the primates' requests without rolling back the place GLBTs in our church. If Integrity can be happy with this, and if it keeps us talking with the Communion, this is close to a miracle.

Thanks be to God.

The Pope of Pittsburgh

2007-09-26T04:53:00.000+01:00

I couldn't make this up. Bishop (or should I begin to practice, "Archbishop") Duncan is referring to his episcopal gathering as a conclave.

During the early hours of yesterday, the Lord reminded me of the word "conclave." Bishop's meetings are sometimes "with the key withheld," the literal meaning of the Latin root. Bishops gathering in conclave cannot come out until they have a successful result. While there will be no one "locking us in," the whole Anglican world is expecting something great of us in this meeting.

During the late hours of today, I am reminded of the word "pretentious."

First, Duncan compares his lot to that of our Savior on Good Friday. Every moment is the "moment of decision" or the "decision point" or the "crucial time" or the "instant of importance." Just when I thought we had reached the height of melodrama, now he's practically crowning himself in a papal tiara. Quick -- someone call the news chopper. Watch Pittsburgh for white smoke!

What's really happening in Pittsburgh is a gathering of disaffected bishops who have banded together in fear and anger. A movement built on that energy will not go far. But at least they'll have plenty of bishops, archbishops, and assorted prelates.

I actually feel sorry for them. I wish they could see that most of us in ECUSA -- even if we poke a bit of fun at them -- would be happy to have them here. Sadly, they feel unwelcomed. I fear that this feeling will continue for them, and they'll have division upon division upon division.

(For the record, I'm perfectly willing to have some fun at the expense of the left too -- and I can take a good ribbing myself. Lest I be accused of picking on the future pontiff...)

BREAKING: HoB is finalizing statement now

2007-09-25T23:08:00.001+01:00

You can get live blog coverage of the HoB from both epiScope or Stand Firm. Commentary will appear here once I have a chance to digest the statement. Oh, and I have an intervening meeting of the parish Altar Guild to attend. First things first!

Afternoon sundries

2007-09-25T21:40:00.001+01:00

While we're waiting for actual news from the HoB, I thought I'd cover a few bits of miscellany. In no particular order...

At T19, there's a posting titled "The Episcopal Church Plays and Loses the Numbers Game." I continue to be puzzled about the conservatives' desire to talk about the numbers game. Some of their own dioceses (have a look at Quincy, or even Fort Worth) are not exactly bastions of evangelism, judging from only the numbers. I'll say it again, if you want big numbers, follow Steenson right on over to Rome. If you want big growth, follow folks to Mecca or Salt Lake City. I don't mind talking about numbers, but it's not healthy to be fixated on them.
Which brings me to my next point. Folks on the right seem boggled by the Presiding Bishop's statement that "The conflict that you read about in the headlines is not reality for 95 percent" of the church. That seems about right to me. This is a really big deal to a bunch of people on the right and a few people on the left. This is an annoying distraction to many, many more people, who would like to just come to church and give thanks and offer prayers. And it's utterly perplexing to lots of others. I live in a diocese with one parish that has left, and two more that receive varying provisions for DEPO (my bishop of +Geralyn Wolf). That said, our diocese spends less than 5% of our energy on this, and within the parish I serve this just doesn't come up. And, by the way, we're not all of one mind. As a diocese, and as a parish, we're diverse in our views. It's just that the "conflict," as in active bickering, simply isn't present. This is, as I keep saying, a big deal in places where the clergy have made it a big deal. 95% conflict-free? Seems about right.
This segues into my next point. Right after clergy, this "crisis" is driven by media. You can't easily write a compelling newspaper story about another person finding God or the way a church took care of one of its members or a generous outreach program. It's much easier to write about impending doom and rampant schism, even if it isn't quite true. Take, for example, my favorite poster child for misguided reporter, Ruth Gledhill. Offering this gem today, she writes about "an Episcopal Church in disarray, led no longer by a 'house' but by a 'community' of bishops, with a songbook of praise to Mother Earth, Sister Moon and Brother Sun. Thank you BabyBlue for finding out what the bishops are singing in New Orleans and thus reminding us that this whole affair actually has very little to do with homosexuality." OK, on the "community" thing you have a point. "House of Bishops" is the canonical language, so let's use it. But what's her beef with Mother Earth, Sister Moon? I guess she thinks her readers won't know the ancient -- very orthodox origins of this phrase, and she'll whoop up a good dose of outrage? Apparently, she thinks her readers don't get to the end of her pieces, or else a fact-checker did some work after she finished. Turns out that even Ruth Gledhill's piece says that this comes from words of St. Francis. But it's not exciting enough to write that "Bishops sing ancient hymn by St. Francis" so she titles this thing, "Goodbye Father Jeffrey. Hello, Sister Moon." Nice.
Oh, one more about Ruth Gledhill. In the same piece (see previous bullet), she ends with this: "What puzzles me is, given the small numbers still attending The Episcopal Church, why are we giving them all this attention?" See the first bullet for her numbers comment. As for the question about attention, I think you might look in a mirror. Why are you writing about us all the time?
The Standing Committee in Forth Worth has announced its intention to abandon the communion of the Episcopal Church. I do wish them well in their new spiritual home, but I also hope the clergy on the Standing Committee will resign quickly and honorably. As these folks are leaving, they need to learn to leave gracefully (taking lessons from Bishop Steenson) and not to be surprised if there are canonical charges if they fail to resign while simultaneously embracing some other church.
On the opposite side of the ideological divide, The Consultation has issued a statement today. It says, in part: "We have in mind the language of the Baptismal Covenant which calls us to respect the dignity of every human being... We believe that all the baptized are called to share in the governance and mission of the Church at all levels. We see the increase of power claimed by the episcopate as imbalance in The Body... The sacred vows of The Baptismal Covenant and the tradition and heritage of the participatory governance of The Episcopal Church must not be squandered for a single Lambeth conference." Well, this is all true as far as it goes. I agree with the aims and the destination of The Consultation, but I'm not sure about the path they advocate. Bishops do, in my view, have a different vocation from lay people or the three orders of the church. Their particular vocation is to guard the unity of the church, and I'd expect them to see things differently from, say, a convocation of deacons. We must also remember the beginning of the Baptismal Covenant, to "continue in the apostles' teaching and fellowship." I believe that our present direction on human sexuality is consonant with these ancient understandings, but we need to start there, not with rights. I hope we progressives can ensure that we're placing Gospel before polity, and grace before governance. When the bishops (HoB or primates) exceed their grasp, we should tell them. But we should not tell them not to lead. I'm unclear what The Consultation is asking, exactly. I hope it's something other than "don't argue with the Executive Council" or "You cannot lead, only General Convention can do that."
Finally, make sure you read Mark Harris for his take on the process of crafting statements. Very helpful, indeed. Maybe not before dinner though.

A new thing? Or lots of new things?

2007-09-25T20:27:00.000+01:00

Archbishop Orombi or Uganda has been in the US this week, getting ready for next week's Common Cause gathering in Pittsburgh. He spoke in Kentucky recently, and Northern Plains Anglicans has the report. I noticed a couple of things while I was reading the report.

Archbishop Orombi consecrated John Guernsey so that there would be an Anglican bishop in close proximity to deal with emergencies. As he expressed it: "It took me 16 hours to arrive in Virginia. If you need a fire truck to come all the way from Uganda, what would be left of the building?"

Hmmm. OK. I can buy that. You don't like ECUSA episcopal care, so you need something else. Fine. But here's what I don't comprehend. If the conservatives represent the True Unified Teaching of Christ Eternal, then I still don't understand why we need a Ugandan bishop in the US. Isn't Minns good enough? Or the AMiA bishops before that? Or the Kenyans? Or....?

Someone please explain to me why the conservatives all need their own particular brand of bishops traipsing around. And please, in your answer, explain it in the way that is Anglican, Catholic, and historic. I've been asking this for a while, and there's still no answer. (Well, there is one answer, but I'm hoping for a better one.)

When asked about the importance of Canterbury, the Archbishop responded, "Anglican identity is not tied to Canterbury." While Anglicans recognize Canterbury as one of the oldest sees, "there are other significant sees." In this matter His Grace follows Church tradition in recognizing the authority of older sees such as Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome and Antioch.

Well, I suppose this is right. It also seems to be radical innovation within the Anglican stream of Christianity to suppose that our identity is not tied closely with the See of Canterbury. Could some of the conservatives at least acknowledge that innovation is not unique to progressives?

Also, I'll be interested to see how the secessionists play this one out. Is +Peter Akinola going to become the Titular Patriarch of Alexandria? Or maybe the Titular Patriarch of Rome? Wait, maybe....Anglican Pontiff....?

Really, I can see the logic of differentiating between communion with Canterbury and the Anglican flavor of Christianity, but this new Anglicanism -- and it will be new -- will be a radical departure from 500 years of history. Meanwhile, the rest of us authentic, orthodox Anglicans will be continuing in the apostles' teaching and fellowship. I'll be sad to see you leave, Archbishop. I wish you Godspeed in your new church -- or churches.

From The Lead: What is the church for?

2007-09-25T16:35:00.000+01:00

There's a fine essay posted at The Lead now. Kathleen Henderson Staudt writes about the nature of the church. I encourage you to read the whole essay. I was particularly drawn to this quote from Evelyn Underhill:

The Church is in the world to save the world. It is a tool of God for that purpose; not a comfortable religious club established in fine historical premises. Every one of its members is required, in one way or another, to cooperate with the Spirit in working for that great end: and much of this work will be done in secret and invisible ways,. We are transmitters as well as receivers. Our contemplation and our action, our humble self-opening to God, keeping ourselves sensitive to his music and light, and our generous self-opening to our our fellow creatures, keeping ourselves sensitive to their needs, ought to form one life, mediating between God and His world, and bringing the saving power of the Eternal into time.

That makes our present squabbling seem silly, doesn't it?

Jim Naughton hopes for the best

2007-09-25T16:28:00.000+01:00

We all need to laugh. If we had a bit more humor, our church would be in a better place. I'm convinced of that. So I was delighted to read of Jim Naughton's hopes for the House of Bishops:

During General Convention when conservatives suggested that the Episcopal Church was thumbing its nose at the Anglican Communion, I disagreed, pointing out that thumbing your nose requires enough coordination to get your hand to your face.
I am praying for an improvement in the House of Bishops' gross motor skills.

Thanks, Jim. We'll all be watching the final press briefing today very carefully to check the bishops' hand-eye coordination.

TEM asks, "Who is drifting from biblical truth?"

2007-09-25T16:20:00.001+01:00

There's a great essay over at The Episcopal Majority. It should be required reading for all those who accuse ECUSA of losing biblical grounding. The author says, in a thought-provoking way, that actually ECUSA is more biblical these days, not less.

Here's a sample:

For over five years I have asked "orthodox" bishops, priests, and laypeople at General Conventions, diocesan conventions, and in every other forum possible to provide a justification of their "orthodox" stance on Biblical theology that references the Synoptic Gospels [Matthew, Mark, and Luke] instead of vague statements about the Bible in general and the usual three to five verses from John's Gospel. There have been no takers. I want to be very clear here: close to six years of asking in a quiet, respectful tone – and no takers. I am amazed that those who are willing to use the Bible as a weapon are unwilling to converse about a central part of it. I keep hoping someone will prove me wrong here.

In a similar vein, I have searched the statements of the Anglican Primates who are most upset about our "abandoning the Bible" for any evidence of the life, the teachings, and the actions of Jesus Christ in the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, or Luke – and I have found none.

Here are some questions for anyone who wants to charge the leadership of the Episcopal Church with "abandoning the Bible" or failing to acknowledge the real authority of the Bible. I ask these questions not rhetorically, but out of genuine concern:
Whom did Jesus heal – and which of the healing stories involve repentance or conversion?
How did Jesus choose Levi, the tax collector, as disciple/apostle – apparently without evidence of personal belief or repentance?
What do you make of the parables that speak so movingly about sufficient faith outside Jesus' faith community?
What is the relationship between Jesus' community and the religious establishment?
What is the relationship between Jesus’ community and the marginalized people of his time?
Is there any group or class of people that Jesus excluded from his welcoming embrace?
How was it, when scholars tell us that Jesus honored women completely, that our church was able to marginalize them for nineteen hundred years?
Are there reasons we do not use the Beatitudes (Matthew 5:1-11) and Paul’s list of the indications that the Holy Spirit is present in individuals and groups (Galatians 5:22-23) as the basis for our moral judgments on committed human relationships rather than the regulations of the purity code that even Conservative and Reformed Jews have rejected?
These are not difficult questions. They are questions, though, that reveal the ignorance of the attacks of those who believe that the Episcopal Church does not concern itself with the authority of the Bible. I believe it is disgraceful to ignore the teachings, the parables, the healings, and the loving and affirming relationships of Jesus Christ while charging those who not only affirm, but also treasure those realities with disregard of the Bible.

If there has been a change within the Episcopal Church over the past few decades, the change has come from our reading the Bible and taking its core message with complete seriousness. The change has also come from our willingness to subject our morality to the overwhelming evidence of the morality preached by the Incarnate One – even when it conflicts with the first chapter of Paul's letter to the Romans. Is that a kind of change to fear or to attack? No, it is not an occasion for attack – or really to fear. It represents the authentic voice of our Lord – and while that voice has often provoked fear, even in the faithful, it is also the path to our salvation.

I wish there were more. I'd like to see a book-length project take this up, including the work of academic biblical experts. This is a tantalizing argument, and it could change things if it could be made persuasively. One might quibble with privileging the synoptic Gospels over other books here, but then this makes one realize the unarticulated assumption that the Pauline corpus should trump the parables of Jesus.

We need a book to take this up. Anyone?

Good advice from Kendall Harmon

2007-09-25T04:23:00.000+01:00

Over at T19, Canon Kendall Harmon has provided some helpful advice for all of us in blogospheria Anglicana as we parse tomorrow's statement from the ECUSA House of Bishops. After encouraging us all to read the text very carefully (and to respond carefully), he ends with this:

Expect the discernment to be a corporate activity. We still seek to be part of the Church of Jesus Christ, and we need one another. May the way we respond demonstrate this.

Read the whole thing. And let's all follow Kendall's sound advice.

Clarity, please -- and my own "radical solution"

2007-09-25T03:33:00.000+01:00

Not too long before the House of Bishops began to meet, Kendall Harmon made this plea:

So let the TEC leaders have the courage of their convictions and say what they actually believe before God and the global Anglican leaders. If they fail to do so, where is the justice in that?

I'm in full agreement with Kendall here. Too often, we progressives in ECUSA have been willing to duck behind polity or otherwise obscure our actions. The bishops needs to acknowledge their authority and their responsibility. (I read a great blog posting about this last week, which I can't find just now.)

Yesterday, Kendall wrote this:

Any attempt to put out a mushy statement and then have people go home and do what they have done before will be a disaster. And that has been the pattern again and again. A system that is stuck needs a breakthrough; a radical proposal that actually creates space, movement, and offers real hope for the future to all as well as calling for sacrifice from all. Pray with me for that.

Again, I heartily agree. We do need a fresh idea, and Kendall's (widely blogged) proposal is for every ECUSA bishop to absent herself or himself from Lambeth 2008. I think that's a lousy idea, as does the other blogger in these parts, Giles Goddard.

We need clarity now, not obfuscation. In the draft statement our bishops are now mulling over (as reported on BabyBlueOnline) the reader will find this:

No rite of blessing for persons living in same sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. We wish to make it clear that the House of Bishops has not voted to authorize such liturgies.

Well, I suppose in a Pharisaical sense that might be true. But SSB's are happening all over the place, with official sanction of diocesan authorities in a few places. Now I happen to believe that SSB's are completely in line with Christian practice and belief. And I long for the day when we can celebrate these blessed moments publicly as a church. But we're trying to have it both ways here. We're doing them, but we're saying that they're not sanctioned.

As a province, I think we should do one of two things. We should either come out and say what we're doing and why (with strong biblical and theological support), or we should stop doing it. If we take the first option, let's face the consequences, if any. It is neither honest nor helpful to do something and then say we're not doing it. It smacks of the worst kind of American imperialism to tell the primates that we've honored their requests, when we really haven't.

Here's another example. Resolution B033 from General Convention 2006 talks about refraining from the consent of candidates whose "manner of life" is problematic for others. Since we're talking about GLBT people, let's name them. It's hardly honorable to place a burden on a class of people (and on the whole church, I think) without showing the burdened class the simple respect of at least naming them. Why didn't we do that? Because our constitution forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation, perhaps. Or maybe because a motion that named LGBT people might not have passed that last-minute effort in Columbus. Either way, we've done something without saying what we've done.

Here's my radical proposal -- as solicited by Kendall Harmon -- for breaking the impasse. (I'm sure it's too late to have an effect in New Orleans, and I'm not sure any bishops other than my own bishop read this corner of cyberspace.)

Let's say what we mean, and let's mean what we say. All of us. Liberal and conservative. American and Nigerian. All of us.

If our bishops have discerned that now is the right time for ECUSA to move ahead with SSB's and GLBT bishops, so be it. Let's say that, go to Lambeth, and face the music. If we say that we're not ready to authorize SSB's, then let us ensure that they are not happening in our churches. Then if some priest (possibly including this one) wants to do them anyway, let's face the consequences.

Our House of Bishops needs to get its act together soon. Bishop Duncan and his ilk should not pretend to be a part of something they obviously no longer support. It's not right to fly to Africa to consecrate invading bishops and then say you're still acting in good faith within ECUSA. Likewise, if Bishop Chane and his ilk don't like what happens in Columbus or New Orleans, they should not issue a "statement of conscience" explaining how they intend to flout the mind of the house. You see, bishops, unlike other orders, have a special vocation to guard the unity of the church. It's not acting with integrity to practice subterfuge, from either right or left.

Now, it will be objected that prophetic witness cannot wait until there is consensus. Of course. I agree completely. Then let these prophets stand up, say what they've done, and let us all say how we'll respond. We should think of what we are called to do more like civil disobedience (if we're departing from the consensus) and less like word-smithing.

I happen to think that if there were more honorable, faithful action on right and left, we'd get through this. It won't make us agree. But it could allow us to see each other as people of faith, trying to serve God in this early pilgrimage.

Hear what I am not saying. I am not saying we should "sell out" our GLBT members any further. I am not saying we should ask conservatives to leave. Just the opposite. I think we can follow what I understand as Christ's invitation to offer blessing to the world, and I think we can provide a home for people of diverse theological views.

Will Peter Akinola change his mind about us? No, but he and his friends are gone already, in spirit if not in fact. The moderate primates and provinces of the Communion would be very likely to have patience toward us if we said what we're up to, and why. We'd be respecting them, and they would almost certainly respect our conscience in return.

It can work, but only when we say what we mean, and mean what we say.

UPDATE: Kendall has written more about our need for clarity here and here.

Trading real bishops for virtual bishops

2007-09-25T03:22:00.000+01:00

Giles Fraser, writing for the Church Times, says this:

Call me old-fashioned, but I think the diocese is necessarily a geographical unit. It is geographical because communities are necessarily geographical. It may be the web that is responsible for the idea of non-geographical communities. On the web, I can be a member of a discussion group for dachshund-lovers, Star Wars fanatics, or like-minded Christians. But these are virtual communities, not real ones. Real community cannot be had at a computer screen, behind a fancy security system and high fences. Community is not a safe cyber gathering of the like-minded. That is why these new bishops are effectively virtual bishops, perfectly appropriate for the unreality of cyberspace. They are just not real bishops.

Setting aside some of Fraser's disdain for Cleveland (a fine American city) that permeates the rest of his piece, he makes some good points.

The church is not meant to be a place for like-minded, similar people. It is meant to be an icon of the Kingdom of God, a place where the invitation of Jesus Christ is extended to all. When we form virtual church communities (whether they're online, or extra-provincial prelatures) we are missing an essential charism of the church.

There is something remarkable about a parish or a diocese. You run into people who astound you -- sometimes in a good way, sometimes in a troubling way. You run into people who inspire you. You run into people who challenge you. But you're always running into surprising people, ready to manifest the mystical union of of all Christians in a fresh way.

As +Rowan said last week to the ECUSA bishops, we are not complete without others. All these parishes (and dioceses, apparently) keen to sever local ties are missing out. They're missing out on the fullness of the surprising grace of God.

God speed, Bishop Steenson

2007-09-25T02:27:00.001+01:00

Yesterday, news came that Bishop Steenson of the Diocese of Rio Grande is going to resign his post and leave the Episcopal Church to join the Roman Catholic Church. Here's a bit from his letter (via BabyBlueOnline):

...my conscience is deeply troubled about where the Episcopal Church is heading, and this has become a crisis for me because of my ordination vow to uphold its doctrine, discipline, and worship. An effective leader cannot be so conflicted about the guiding principles of the Church he serves. It concerns me that this has affected my ability to lead this diocese with a clear and hopeful vision for its mission. I also have sensed how important it is for those of us in this position to model a gracious way to leave the Episcopal Church in a manner respectful of its laws.

I believe that God’s call to us is always positive, always a to and not a from. At the clergy conference next week I hope to be able to share something of this. Many of you already know of my love for the Catholic Church and my conviction that this is the true home of Anglicanism. I will not dwell on this, however, so as not to lose sight of my responsibility to help lay a good foundation for the transition that you must now lead.

I also want to acknowledge with gratitude the pastoral support I have received from the Presiding Bishop and her office during this time. She has offered to visit, and I have invited her to be with us at the clergy conference the afternoon of Wednesday, Sept. 26, and perhaps also for that evening, for mutual conversation and the opportunity to know each other better in this time reserved for the clergy.

I am sad to see this man, clearly of great integrity, depart. More than that, however, I hope and pray that he finds a spiritual home in his new branch of the Church. I admire his gentle tone -- without a hint of anger or bitterness -- and his desire for the best for the diocese he has served. I commend this letter to all of us. Note how he is even kind to the Presiding Bishop, though he must disagree her direction in innumerable ways.

I'll write more about this soon, but mostly I admire his sense of vocation for himself and for the church. I wish more people in all this conflict had more of Bishop Steenson's integrity. He acknowledges that he cannot obey his ordination vows, and he is seeking a place where his own vocation will match his church's mission.

Let us all pray for Bishop Steenson, and for the Diocese of Rio Grande.

UPDATE: I encourage you to read the account of +Steenson's remarks to the House of Bishops, as reported in The Living Church. His conclusion:

In concluding remarks, Bishop Steenson asked for forgiveness from his fellow bishops "for any difficulty this may cause and for anything I may have said or done that has failed to live up to the love of Christ." [He continued:] "I hope that you will not see this as a repudiation of The Episcopal Church or Anglicanism. Rather, it is the sincere desire of a simple soul to bear witness to the fullness of the Catholic faith, in communion with what St. Irenaeus called 'that greatest and most ancient Church.' I believe that our noble Anglican tradition ('this worthy patrimony') has deep within it the instinct of a migratory bird calling, 'It is time to fly home to a place you have never seen before.' May the Lord bless my steps and yours and bring our paths together in his good time."

Lambeth's for everyone

2007-09-23T13:08:00.000+01:00

Murmurs abound on T19 and Stand Firm about the possibility of TEC Bishops' voluntarily withdrawing from Lambeth.

Over here in the UK, we can't stress strongly enough what a really, really bad idea that would be.

The whole point of the 2008 Lambeth Conference is that it is intended to be a place and time when ALL the duly elected and consecrated Bishops of the Communion can be present together (and we hope the Bishop of New Hampshire will be there as a duly elected consecrated Bishop). So that they can listen, pray, worship, take Communion and understand each other better. As some Bishops did recently at the meeting in Madrid.

Clearly some maths has been done and a little analysis of what would be left if TEC withdrew. It's no surprise that the suggestion emerges from the more conservative position... because ... hey presto .... the orthodox, open, inclusive, classical Anglican voice is reduced. Result, for those who are not keen to celebrate the ministry and God-given gifts of all people whatever their sexual orientation or gender - happiness!

The Archbishop of Mexico spoke very powerfully yesterday to a meeting of Inclusive Church in London. His comments on the marginalisation of Primates from the smaller churches in the Communion were very relevant. Clearly in terms of voices listened to in the Communion, size does matter.

The agenda of the Lambeth Conference is carefully organised to try to ensure that real encounter happens. For TEC to withdraw, for what may undoubtedly be good and constructive motives around ensuring unity, would simply mean that the issues which bedevil us would still continue to be around for another 10 years, and then another.....

It is vital for the future health of the Communion that all the Bishops who have been invited are there. If we don't talk we'll never make progress towards the deeper understanding of one another and of God to which the Spirit is calling us.

Newsflash: Scott Gunn and BabyBlueOnline agree?!

2007-09-23T01:21:00.000+01:00

Just read this over at BabyBlueOnline:

The media campaign from 815 is that this division is over an issue of justice. If that is true, then why don't they courageously stand up and take the consequences for their convictions? They have publicly framed the debate in those terms and not in the terms of the Dar Es Salaam Communique - for them the division is over justice. Is the Anglican Crisis one of Biblical Doctrine or Social Justice? What say you?

Hear, hear. We in ECUSA have spoken too often about justice, and not often enough about biblical authority for what we're up to. I've been saying that on this blog for months, for what it's worth.

I would add that I might describe this as a debate about "scriptural hermeneutics" or "Christian authority" rather than either Biblical Doctrine or Social Justice. And, yet, there is more at work too. For the conservatives especially (thought this is true of the left at times too), it seems that the response has been disproportionate to the "causes." I don't fully understand that.

Now, back to our agreement. If I can agree with Mary, then maybe other miracles of reconciliation are possible. Like her, I would hope that the HoB could provide some clarity -- both right and left need to hear it. And I would also hope that we all begin to talk about authority within the church, not talk past each other about different subjects. Oh, and by "authority" I mean the Bible, ancient tradition, and human reason -- not just ECUSA polity.

(On a related note: I'm grateful to Mary for her blog always, even though agreement is rare. I like her multimedia mix, and I'm glad she's in New Orleans dishing up her unique bloggish take on things.)

Is the sky (or the Pension Fund) falling?

2007-09-23T00:38:00.001+01:00

The hyperventillating self-victimization is getting tiresome. My latest example, from Quad-Cities Online (covering the Diocese of Quincy), via Stand Firm:

ROCK ISLAND -- The Rev. Steven McClaskey really didn't want to retire right now from his pastoral post at Trinity Church in Rock Island.
Yet, he also didn't want to risk losing his pension, which advisers and he felt was endangered, by the continued dispute between Episcopal Church leaders and the worldwide Anglican Communion.

Puh-lease. If +Steven doesn't want to retire, he shouldn't retire. And if he wants to retire, he should do that. But he should not blame is decision on the current "crisis."

I don't have it handy to check the number, but I just got my annual Church Pension Fund report in the mail. The accumulated funds number is big. Very big. Huge. Something more than umpteen gajillion. So there's no way some squabble over moral theology or whatever is going to matter in a financial sense. And it turns out that all of these secessionist clergy will get their (100% vested) benefits when they leave. So, basically, there's no way any of this has to do with +Steven's retirement.

Then I started thinking -- maybe he's being harassed by one of the few badly behaved liberal bishops who go after conservatives. Nope. Bishop Ackerman isn't bothering him. Bishop Ackerman, and the Diocese of Quincy, of course, aren't going to be bothered by anything that's happening at 815, or Pittsburgh, or Abuja.

So this is another case of a reported who got suckered into reporting that the Anglican sky is falling. When, in reality, any "crisis" that Steve is experiencing is a product of his own doing.

The headline reads "Internal bickering leaves [Quad Cities] Anglican churches in turmoil." I guess that's accurate, if the "internal" applies to the inside of one person's head, or if it means internal to a congregation that's been stirred to a frenzy by its clergy.

Spin, spin, spin

2007-09-22T04:35:00.000+01:00

As a blog aficionado, you must know, dear reader, that most of what is emanating from mainstream media ("MSM" to the kids) and blogospheria Anglicana is about spinning both the events and the speculation about events in New Orleans.

Maybe someone could come up with a clever game to play. If I weren't a teetotaller, this would have been made into a drinking game by now. Don't let me stop you. Perhaps some intrepid commenter can devise something terribly fun and novel.

Let us take some examples for inspiration:

Ruth Gledhill -- she'll have to be the cause of either bonus points or subtraction, but certainly something -- is always good for spin-ology. A recent article is entitled, "Pro-gay agenda pushes Church closer to schism." Well, no. "Pro-dissident agenda pushes Church closer to utter irrelevance" would have been more accurate but less sensational. Her subject, +Peter Akinola, is worried about schism? Maybe he should stop consecrating schismatic bishops. I seem to remember something about the beam in one's own eye...
In an encore, the Gledhill/Akinola duet delivers another dazzling aria of spin. Now Akinola is pretending as if he's dithering over whether or not to hold a parallel pseudo-Lambeth Conference next July for his buddies. The reality is that Peter has been looking for space in England for months now. This dithering is all for show. It's to his advantage to make petulant statements as if he's coming and then to also make petulant statements about not coming. Someday he'll make up his mind publicly, but the space is almost surely booked by now.
Every dissenter's favorite "spin machine," Episcopal Life Online, has churned out a beauty of a headline: "Archbishop of Canterbury 'encouraged' by bishops' meetings" and the subhead is "Nearly $1 million raised for hurricane relief efforts." Just the opposite of Gledhill's a-crisis-under-every-rock take on the situation. I'm not there, obviously, but I'm quite confident there's a truth somewhere between impending schism and fundraising/encouragement. You pretty much have to expect the house organ to have an optimistic take on things. To be sure, the ELO article is less spin-ish once you get past the cheery headlines, though that won't stop the howls from the right. (Let the reader know: I serve on the Board of Governors of Episcopal Life.)
Many secessionist bishops bought their plane tickets with the intent to split as soon as Rowan left. They have to get rested up for the big shindig in Pittsburgh, after all. But that didn't stop them from huffing off and making it seem like a sad/angry retreat.

Commenters -- please submit more spin examples, and maybe suggest a way we can use all this spin to good advantage, if not edification.

Inclusion without "inclusion"?

2007-09-22T04:15:00.000+01:00

The Anglican Centrist has a compelling post. Ironic for the "InclusiveChurch" blog, but I actually think Greg+ makes some great points about how we should move our rhetoric beyond "inclusion."

The Anglican Communion doesn't need 'inclusion.' It needs faithfulness in the New Covenant to Jesus Christ, because if it has faithfulness to Jesus Christ all the members of His body will be cherished. It doesn't need 'Biblical authority.' It need faithfulness to Jesus Christ because if it has faithfulness to Jesus Christ, the authority of the Eternal Word of God (which breathes mightily through Scripture study when prayerfully engaged by the Body of Christ) will be heeded.

I believe a faithful Christian can be openly gay and in a committed relationship, and a person such as this would be fit to be ordained in God's Church, if they were in all other ways qualified, and above all, called by God.

I also believe that there are many in the Anglican world who can tolerate this and remain in communion with the Episcopal Church -- but who nonetheless would like to see the American Church demonstrate just a bit more humility and mindfulness of the fuller Communion.

It's not just our destination that matters. It's how we get there. I like where ECUSA is headed, and I hope we can find the right path for our journey. Whether we do this will determine if we are able to walk with much of the developing world.

+Mouneer Anis speaks plainly

2007-09-22T03:21:00.000+01:00

Thanks to BabyBlueOnline, we have a report of the sermon Bishop Mouneer Anis preached to the HoB. Here's a snippet:

I understand that it is difficult for you in your context to accept the tandard teaching of the Anglican Communion. This is why you refused to accept Lambeth Conference Resolution 1.10. You also ignored all the warnings of the Primates in 2003, 2004, and 2005. Your response to the Windsor Report is seen by the Primates as not clear. You cannot say you value being a member of the Anglican Communion while you ignore the interdependence of the member churches. The interdependence is what differentiates us from the other congregational churches. I would like to remind you and myself with the famous resolution 49 of the Lambeth Conference of 1930 which declares "the Anglican Communion is a fellowship of churches that ... are bound together not be a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference." With respect, I have to say that those who would prefer to speak of laws and procedures, constitutions and canons, committees and process: you are missing the point! It is our mutual loyalty and fellowship, submitting to one another in the common cause of Jesus Christ that makes us of one Church on faith and one Lord.

It is clear that your actions have resulted in one of the most difficult disputes in the Communion in our generation. You may see them as not core doctrinal issues. Many like me see the opposite but the thing that we cannot ignore is that these issues are divisive and have created a lot of undesired consequences and reactions. For the first time in centuries, the fabric of our Communion is torn. Our energies have been drained and our resources are lost; and it is difficult for both of us to continue like this.

My friends, if you really believe that the truth revealed to you is different from that shown to the rest of the Communion, then you need to uphold that claim with boldness even at the risk of losing unity. If you think it is right and necessary to ordain and consecrate practicing homosexuals and that you should bless same sex partnerships or even marriages, you should be true to what you believe is right and accept the consequences.

However, if you appreciate being members of the global Anglican family, then you have to walk along side the members of your family. Those who say that it is important to stay together around the table, to listen to each other and to continue our dialogue over the difficult issues that are facing us are wise. We wholeheartedly agree with this, but staying around the table requires that you should not take actions that are contrary to the standard position (Lambeth 1:10) of the rest of the Communion.

This is, frankly, a position that we Americans need to hear. The Communion moderates (again, these folks will seem "conservative" to most folks from ECUSA) would like to be sympathetic, but they need to hear an articulation of what we're doing and why. It will not do to duck behind polity and say we haven't done what we've done.

Now, it should also be noted that Lambeth 1.10 also talks about pastoral care for GLBT people, and that provision has been roundly ignored in the so-called Global South. The Lambeth resolutions on this topic of 1978, 1988, and 1998 have called for a "listening process" which has never gotten off the ground. Moreover, in the past, Lambeth Conferences have changed their positions on matters of moral theology. Oh, and no one seems to want to juxtapose Lambeth resolutions 1.9 (Ecology) with 1.10 in view of all the airplane travel to sustain a bitter feud over who has sex with whom. So what we have is an effort to elevate this one resolution to the status of inerrancy, but even these people only want to enforce one part of the resolution.

But back to the sermon. Much of what he says should be listened to by Americans -- listening works that way too! We have acted at times with hubris and insensitivity. But it is also true that this "crisis" was not precipitated by +Gene Robinson. Anglicans have never been of a single mind on all matters of moral theology, and this situation has been the result of systematic effort of wealthy Americans and a few Africans.

In my view, the ECUSA's direction toward approving same-sex blessings and toward ordaining GLBT people in partnerships is the way we should be headed. But we should tread carefully and deliberately, always saying why we're doing it -- as Christians, not just based on human rights -- and taking responsibility for our positions. If we can remain faithful, there is a good chance, I think, that we can stay in relationship with faithful Anglicans around the world, even as we may not agree on some matters dear to us.

Let us make sure we all hear the Gospel in the sermon. Let us make sure we all hear the whole Gospel.

Anglican Communion polity 101

2007-09-22T02:52:00.001+01:00

I'm surprised by an item over at T19. Canon Kendall Harmon is a smart man, and I believe he is a person of great faith and integrity. In responding to something he saw at Walking with Integrity, he quotes this:

The AP wanted to know, "who is going to decide whether the Episcopal Church has responded to the Dar Es Salaam Communique…?" Bishop Rabb said, "it is the Primates who will have to decide that."

Kendall then says this:

I agree. The Primates asked for the Windsor Report, they received it and modified it slightly in Dromantine, and then in response to the TEC's response to Windsor and Dromantine, they issued the Tanzania Communique. Now the American House of Bishops is meeting in response to the Primates Tanzania Communique and before their September 30th deadline. So where is the Primates meeting on the Anglican Communion schedule? That would seem to be quite important--KSH.

Here's the thing. Just because the primates did something doesn't make it right. No one gave them the authority they've claimed for themselves. Though it's hard to say, since they have no constitution, it seems to me that they were -- prior to the Present Troubles -- primarily a consultative body.

The primates have requested a response from ECUSA. This was not, we are assured by +Rowan Williams some kind of threat or ultimatum. The HoB will surely offer a response. This is a courtesy. The response date was set based on a pre-existing meeting of the HoB, not the other way around.

The jurisdiction for deciding Important Anglican Things lies with +Rowan Williams and the Anglican Consultative Council. The Lambeth Conferences, by tradition, have articulated an Anglican view on topics of interest. Ultimately, they'll sort this out all. (It will soon be easier, because the Akinolites will be long gone before these groups meet.) So, it seems to me, the date of the next primates' meeting is less important than the dates of other upcoming meetings -- Lambeth, the ACC, and of course, Duncan's big party in Pittsburgh in a few days. And let us not forget, no one has elevated +Peter Akinola and his friends to the office of cardinal.

+Andrus gives the prologue -- where's the finale?

2007-09-21T23:04:00.000+01:00

It was widely reported today in the blogosphere that +Marc Andrus from California addressed the Bishops. From Marc's own site, I quote:

With respect to sexual orientation, it must be said that the Episcopal Church is the main refuge for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people who are seeking to lead a Christian life. These people are primarily not natives of the Bay Area, they come from all over the United States and indeed the world. They have come to San Francisco and the Bay Area seeking a life where they are not subjected to discrimination and violence, where they can lead normal lives, and in some cases, Christian lives. It is my responsibility to provide a context for this search for holiness of life.

It is also important to say here that the Episcopal Church in the Bay Area is immeasurably enriched by the presence of LGBT people in our parishes and missions. These are gifted, faithful Christian people, lay and ordained, passionate about their faith and church. It is hard to imagine what the Diocese of California would be like without these great people, but I can get something of a picture by remembering the many places I’ve lived from which they have come to the Bay Area, places where they were barred from employment, pushed out of their homes and families, and yes, found cold welcome in churches, and tragically in some instances, were subjected to physical violence. For every one of these men and women enlivening the Episcopal Church in the Diocese of California there are empty places all over the United States where their graceful presences are missing.

All that is true. However, we cannot expect to talk about justice and experience and think that we will nurture conversion among the wider Communion. We Americans had better start talking about biblical and traditional grounds for our innovation.

Obviously, writing for a blog called by the name "InclusiveChurch" and affiliated with IC in the UK, I favor the full inclusion of GLBT Christians in all aspects of the life and ministry of the church. However, I support this "new thing" because I believe this change -- and it is a departure from the historic practice of the church -- is warranted. I believe this change is warranted on scriptural grounds, and I believe it is warranted on grounds of tradition. And, finally, my experience tells me that it's the right thing to do.

The progressive bishops in the US need to realize that not every conservative is +Peter Akinola. Not everyone who resists this innovation is homophobic. The global moderates (which appear to Americans to be conservatives) want to stay in communion with us. They just need the rationale -- the theological and biblical support -- for what we're doing.

So, keep up the talk Marc, and everyone else. But keep talking right on past experience, and talk about your faith in Jesus Christ. Talk about scriptural grounds and the witnesses from history. We all need to hear that.

Covenant is going nowhere

2007-09-21T22:52:00.000+01:00

The proposed Covenant will not come into force in the Anglican Communion. Wales has said no, and so will many other provinces. This particular brand of innovation will not be welcomed by Anglicans, except for those who see this as an opportunity to further their takeover agenda. This is what got reported: "Dr Barry Morgan, the Archbishop of Wales said he fears the draft covenant will lead to one voice on controversial issues, such as homosexuality, which members would have to sign up to or leave." In other words, we are not, nor do we wish to be, a confessional church.

Some people don't like that, and those are the folks who are setting up their dissident Communion in Pittsburgh later this month. Of course, the problem is that those who favor litmus tests usually can't agree for very long on what matters. That's why we have a proliferation of parallel jurisdictions in place now, and it's why there's an ever-increasing number of "continuing" churches.

Here's the thing. For those who take catholicity seriously, two things become clear. First, I may not innovate without a good reason (and without consequences). Second, I will be willing to accept variance on non-essentials, because I accept that notion that the Church is for everyone, not just for those who agree with me. What we have here is not, primarily, a battle over bible-versus-culture. Instead, much of our struggle is catholic-or-confessional. And, to be fair, many so-called progressives have secularized the church to the point where it is no longer recognizably Nicene -- but those examples are a minority, despite conservative attempts to pretend that ECUSA is a "new religion."

But I digress. My point is this. As I have said all along, the proposed covenant is an attempt to hijack authentic Anglicanism. It will not succeed, especially once the Akinolites leave the table, and the rest of us progressives and moderates are left to figure out how to get along with one another.

Rowan reminds us all of what matters

2007-09-21T20:39:00.000+01:00

Amidst all the shouting and finger-pointing -- and snarky comments, of which yours truly is sometimes guilty -- it's easy to lose sight of what matters. In his sermon in New Orleans, +Rowan Williams gets it just right (video at Episcopal Life Online):

People speak about the recognition of dignity owed to one another. About the respect that we owe to one another. But I wonder whether or not we're not missing some thing? When I say to a friend, I owe you one, it's away of saying thank you. And perhaps the bottom line is that what we owe to one another most deeply of all, is gratitude. Not even respect. Not even the recognition of dignity so much as gratitude.

We are indebted to one another. I am indebted for your existence. Because I would not be myself without you. And a society, a community, a city that can get to that level of recognition, is one that lives from a deeper place than one that simply talks about contract or even respect. And it's this perspective which I believe, this perspective above all that the church brings to bare. Because the church is a community which lives from and in gratitude. And if the church does not live by thanksgiving, I don't know what the church lives by. And when the church fails as it so often does to live from thanksgiving, I wonder whether it lives at all.

Why is it that the most central and important action we do as Christians is called the thanksgiving? That's the well spring of who we are and what we are.

So as Christians we recognize our indebtedness to one another. My indebtedness to you for just being there. Never mind anything else. And the gospel reading opens up that further and deeper dimensions which says that what we owe to one another is exactly what we owe to Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ, who gives us life, Jesus Christ has given us a new creation, the humanity renewed, restored and reset that we are celebrating tonight.

Jesus Christ gives us hope. Who gives us the capacity to move away from our fears. Who gives us the strength and the joy to (inaudible).

We owe Christ big time as they say.

Among progressives, I can see that we often fail to maintain a sense of gratitude. We talk about respect, but it's sometimes a code for the furtherance of our own agenda. We talk about thanksgiving, but we rarely acknowledge the fact that who we are comes from God, and it is contingent on others -- even those with whom we disagree.

Among conservatives, I observe a sense that the church should be mired in some static place (pick the 17th century, or 1928, or 1955, or...). The church loses its sense of gratitude, and there is certainly no abiding thanksgiving for the presence of everyone -- including LGBT Christians.

What if we really experienced God's grace? What if we acted as if we really believed that it is right to give thanks, "always and everywhere"? What if we had a view of the church catholic imbued with the notion that the church is complete only when it is undivided?

I think progressives would be a little slower to jettison those with whom they disagree. I think conservatives might be a bit more flexible, moving more of our common life into the category of adiaphora.

My friends, Rowan is right. It's all about grace. It's all about Jesus. When we talk only about rights, or autonomy, or justice, or experience, we have missed the boat. When we talk only about tradition, or law, or unanimity, we have missed the boat.

Let us follow Rowan's advice. Let us give thanks.

Catching up

2007-09-21T16:53:00.000+01:00

As regular readers of this blog know, I place this writing -- which I enjoy doing -- on the back burner behind parish ministry. Not to sound self righteous, but I think we wouldn't be in this mess if more people placed local ministry ahead of internecine doctrinal squabbling.

In any case, I was about to hold forth on the presently happening HoB meeting, but my blogroll is full of bookmarks to things I meant to comment on. So, please indulge me as I clear the backlog so that I can soon be oh-so-current with blogospheria Anglicana in the New Orleans happenings.

In order to correct a desperate shortage of bishops, CANA has elected four more. OK, I know the irony is probably over the top. Numbers are hard to come by, but I really can't figure out why they need one bishop to every ten congregations. Someone on the right, please help me with an explanation other than the cynical take: a bunch of priests want to play dress-up in pointy hats. I can't keep track of this lot, but it's a big number of bishops for a small number of people.
Speaking of numbers, Simon Sarmiento has tried to get some firm numbers on how many people are really leaving ECUSA. Despite all the rantings of bloggers and sensational stories from media types, it turns out that the number of parishes who have left ECUSA is quite small. Quite, quite small. These conservative types love to cite numbers (majority of primates, number of Anglicans in Nigeria, etc.) when it's to their favor, but they seem reluctant to supply hard numbers when it makes their case look grim.
Bishop Iker is a piece of work. First he heads over to Africa to join in an episcopal consecration that violates the spirit of his ordination vows (to uphold the discipline of the church, not to mention the unity) and the letter of the Windsor Report. Then he expresses shock and outrage when the President of the House of Deputies appears in his diocese to speak. He issued a release stating that this was arranged without his knowledge. Then Fort Worth Via Media published their email to him inviting him to come, and his reply declining the invite. Oops. Better check next time. And, of course, as much as it must pain Bishop Iker, bishops do not control lay people, and this (woman -- gasp!) leader did not need his permission to speak within his diocese. Ironic, isn't it, that he subverts the order of the church when it looks good to him, but then doesn't like it when someone licitly criticizes him?
One Australian bishop gets it. Lambeth 2008 is critical to our common life, and everyone should come. ''All legitimate bishops in the Communion should attend the Lambeth Conference,'' Bishop Browning said. ''We need to be challenged by one another and to try to understand each other.'' (Hat tip to T19.)
I would be remiss to omit mention of Bishop Spong's letter to +Rowan Williams. Where to begin? This is another example, in my view, of the American hubris that is largely responsible for our Present Troubles. "Either you're with us, or your against us" is not appealing to me when it comes from the White House, or when it comes from Abuja, or when it comes from Jack Spong. Most of points have been made more articulately elsewhere, and I'm quite sure that Rowan is not likely to change his mind when he receives a public, patronizing letter. Frankly, Jack's letter is counter-productive, because Rowan is generally disposed to lean progressively anyway. Please spend your time writing more books, and less time meddling in the affairs of the church.
Speaking of bishops who should mind their manners, +Peter Akinola was up to his usual tricks. In an open letter, he had the audacity to complain that conservatives might not be "safe" at Lambeth. If I didn't know better, I'd think this was some kind of joke. This is a man to works to pass legislation that would imprison people for merely speaking up for GLBT rights, and a man who remains silent when LGBT Christians are killed for being who they are. And he's complaining about safety? Peter, there is a big difference between danger and unpleasantness. Your side continues to miss that distinction. Unlike many of the members of your own church who live in Nigeria, you will be perfectly safe at Lambeth, and you will only have to endure a few people speaking their mind to you. Sorry, but you don't get to silence the whole world. Oh, and I thought you were protesting the whole thing anyway? Why are you now worried about your travel arrangements?
Here's another one that won't make the right happy. Turns out that not every primate is in lock step with the Akinolites. "Two Archbishops are to speak at Manchester Cathedral, calling for the Church of England to be inclusive. The Archbishop of Mexico and the leader of the Scottish Episcopal Church are taking part in a conference Celebrating Anglican Diversity, which will celebrate the long tradition of a diverse Church that welcomes all people. It is being held on September 29." From here, with a hat tip to the Episcopal Cafe. More info here.
Why isn't the right howling about the news from Sydney? "The Sydney Anglican Church has revived its radical push to let church elders preside over Holy Communion despite strident opposition from Australian Anglicans and the worldwide church and at the risk of antagonising international churches it has courted to stop the consecration of gay bishops." That's a bigger deal, it would seem, than points of moral theology. As Bob Dole once said, "Where's the outrage?" (Thanks to Covenant Communion.)

Lost perspective

2007-09-12T04:18:00.001+01:00

I've been accused of being insane, so maybe I shouldn't be casting aspersions. That said, I think the Diocese of Pittsburgh is joining the growing herd of conservatives headed away from the Land of Reality.

Today we learn that the Diocese of Pittsburgh is planning to expand itself to, well, the whole world. At least any parish that they like will be free to sign up. Anywhere. On the planet. Guess that's quite a promotion for +Bob Duncan. Bishop of the Diocese of Pittsburgh and All Places. I guess, with that kind of geographic spread, maybe we should be calling him Archbishop or Pontiff or something. Maybe the purple shirt people are getting into cahoots with the white vestment people.

Anyway, I digress. Mark Harris+ has done a thorough job of walking us through the many problems of some proposed resolutions for their Diocesan Convention. (Soon they'll be renaming that to Interplanetary Convention?) To name a few problems: Canterbury will not enjoy having individual dioceses decide which provinces they align with; Canterbury will not enjoy having dioceses take on parishes any old place; these changes are moot, because they're flatly in contradiction to the Constitution & Canons of the Episcopal Church. Again, go read Mark's incisive analysis.

Here's what I'll add. This is from the press release:

The Episcopal Church has been steadily moving away from biblical Christianity for more than 30 years. Church leaders are on record denying basic Christian truths, especially concerning the uniqueness of atonement and salvation by Jesus Christ and the primacy of Scripture in determining moral and theological teaching.

OK, the first sentence should be re-written to read: "The Episcopal Church has been steadily moving theologically, just as Christianity has done for the preceding two millennia." The second sentence is true, and I agree this is a problem. In some future posting, I'll be happy rant about my sisters and brothers on the left who have done all of the above. It's a problem, though a much smaller one than some people imagine. I'm a Nicene Christian, and I think any Anglican cleric should be the same. Most of the progressive priests I know are solidly orthodox. As far as biblical moral teaching goes, the Bible has much more to say about economics than sex (if you actually bother to read it), and I don't hear much about that topic emanating from Pittsburgh or Abuja. Money and power are major points of moral and theological teaching. Who has sex with whom is important, but it's a minor point compared with other things.

Now, this is my favorite bit of delicious irony. Pay attention to this. ECUSA leaders are accused of denying the "uniqueness of atonement and salvation by Jesus Christ." Just a few weeks ago, the very same Bob Duncan is reported to have stood in front of a bunch of people and said that "This is Good Friday and we have to face it."

No, Good Friday was when Jesus Christ died as part of God's salvation of the world. Your own problems, and those of your conservative friends are merely inconveniences to you. No one is dying, and it is certainly not part of the atonement. The atonement was a one-time affair. Check it out, maybe in Article 31.

So, whatever you might accuse us progressives of in the Department of Theological Confusion, do not preach to us about confusing atonement and salvation. I can't speak for others, but I believe I get it. And it has everything to do with Jesus Christ, and very little to do with the Anglican Communion Network's woes.

This time, I'm afraid it's Pittsburgh's Diocesan Council and their good bishop who may have lost touch with Anglican reality.

Selective democracy in Fort Worth

2007-09-07T03:40:00.001+01:00

Gotta love it. Bishop Iker of Fort Worth has posted his latest missive. In it we find this:

By the end of this month, the House of Bishops will have decided the future direction of TEC, and as a result we too will have to declare our future as a diocese. I do not expect that TEC will comply with the requests of the primates in their Dar es Salaam Communiqué. In that case, we will see further fraction and division in the Communion during the months ahead. We will then have to choose in favor of the Anglican Communion majority at the expense of our historic relationship with the General Convention Church.

Several things are worth pointing out here. First, it goes without saying that a diocese cannot leave the church, though +Iker is free to leave any time. So, on the diocesan level, a democratic vote is moot, because the concept of leaving is also moot. Second, I find it intriguing that he refers to the Episcopal Church as the "General Convention Church." Of course, Iker's love of diocesan democracy doesn't filter up. General Convention -- to which Fort Worth could send Deputies, like everyone else -- takes votes. That principal is enshrined in tradition and in the Canons & Constitution to which Iker has sworn obedience. Why does that democracy not count in his eyes?

Third, he mentions the "Anglican Communion majority." Interesting. The only one of the Instruments with a constitution, and the only one with the ability to admit or exclude members, is the Anglican Consultative Council. At their last meeting, the relevant votes passed by such narrow majorities, that if the US and Canada had not voluntarily excluded themselves, the results would have been flipped. Doesn't seem like much of a majority there.

When Iker speaks of the "majority" is he talking about primates? A very careful reading of the Dar communique, or a study of who shared the Eucharist with Bishop Rowan or Bishop Katherine may reveal a different majority than Iker imagines. Is his "majority" the number of lay people who might support his views? How would we know? I think that not very many people, a very slender minority, in fact, would like to tear the church apart over human sexuality.

So it seems to be that Iker invokes democratic principles (voting, majorities) when he fancies that the results will match his predilections. And even then, he might be mistaken.

As an aside, I found this to be of interest as well:

Pray that the Bishops of The Episcopal Church will turn back, even at this late hour, from the course they have been pursuing, a course that has sown seeds of discord and broken fellowship far and wide. Pray too for the leadership of this diocese as the realignment continues, that we may remain faithful to the received faith and practice of historic, biblical Christianity.

Personally, I find it most helpful to pray for wisdom, and for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I pray for the grace to be a faithful disciple. I think it's presumptuous in the extreme to imagine that we should ask God to buttress our own foregone conclusions, on anything. To pray for anything other than strength, wisdom, and grace is to pray in hubris. To pray for strength, wisdom, and grace is...faithful, historic, biblical, and Christian.

Titus Presler: Keeping the Communion

2007-09-07T03:29:00.000+01:00

Via the Admiral of Morality, I learned about an essay of Titus Presler+. You can find the full essay here (PDF, 41MB!).

Here's a sample:

Search out opportunities to get to know personally Anglicans from other parts of the world. Your congregation may have visitors or members with whom conversation about the issues would be illuminating. Explore how you and your parish can participate in the diocese’s international progams and missions. Sometimes we Episcopalians are global citizens in our work while remaining very limited in our Church awareness.

If your work takes you abroad, make a point before traveling to find out about the Anglican province where you’ll be. Begin web-surfing at www.anglicancommunion.org, which can lead you to service times at and directions to parishes in Tokyo, Sao Paulo, Nairobi, Mexico City or wherever. Episcopal missionaries working in the area are especially valuable contacts, and you can find them by checking the missionary roster at www.episcopalchurch.org.

A hurting world needs desperately the kind of global network for companionship in mission that the Anglican Communion historically has provided. Now in the hurt and alienation of our own Communion, each of us can play a part in rebuilding the trust, the companionship and the mission.

Prior to ordination, I did a fair amount of international travel, and I've done some since then as well. I fully agree with Pressler's advice. For example, when I had a chance to talk with ordinary Tanzanians during the Primates' Meeting last February, I got a wholly different picture of the church in Tanzania. Primates do not speak for every Anglican in their provinces.

We need to make these personal connections, and our world needs a global voice that has a greater purpose than making a buck. There are many reasons to treasure the Anglican Communion, but one of them must surely be the global view that can inform Anglican Christianity, and help us share the Gospel with the whole world.

Additional explanation, and an idea

2007-09-06T04:54:00.000+01:00

In case my previous attempt to understand the proliferation of bishops was misguided, I wanted to devise a backup theory. Conveniently, right there in my blogroll was this gem from the MadPriest.

That makes as much sense as anything else. Hey, I have an idea! As long as we're promoting priests, let's consecrate the MadBishop. At least one of the purple-shirts would inject some levity into all this. Who's with me?

To the victor belong the spoils!

2007-09-06T03:12:00.000+01:00

The news from Rwanda today got me to thinking. Just when I was worried there was a shortage of conservative bishops, Rwanda has promised three more -- so that perhaps half their House of Bishops will be Americans, serving in America.

I've been trying to understand all this. I've been trying to avoid the cynical conclusion that this is just a way for a bunch of Episcopal priests to become bishops. I've been assuming that most of the conservatives are acting in good faith. As the rhetoric and behavior ratchets up on the right, I'm beginning to grow cynical, to notice the ridiculous number of bishops, and to see signs of bad faith.

Now I realize I may have gotten it all wrong. I think a certain company from Greenwich, Connecticut has brainwashed certain Anglicans to espouse divisive ideas. The idea was that things would fall apart, and we'd need a whole new set of bishops. Heck, now we're getting set after set of bishops. Their nefarious plan has been wildly successful!

Yes, my friends, I believe it's all about the purple shirts. Is it the retailer? The fabric manufacturer? How deep does the plot go? If I can find an IRD-esque funder, I plan to continue this investigation. And, definitely, I'm going to buy a massive fake volcano.

As crazy as it sounds to imagine that an ecclesiastical haberdasher is behind all this, I just can't fathom a more rational explanation for why Rwanda needs to have half its House of Bishops operating in the US. I can't see why we need to have outposts from Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Southern Cone, and who-knows-where-else?

Oh, and the following groups also all seem to have bishops these days: American Anglican Church, Anglican Catholic Church, Anglican Church in America, Anglican Church in the USA, Anglican Churches of America, Anglican Episcopal Church, Anglican Independent Communion Worldwide, Anglican Orthodox Church, Anglican Province of America, Anglican Province of Christ the King, Christian Episcopal Church, Diocese of the Holy Cross, Episcopal Missionary Church, Holy Catholic Church (Anglican Rite), Orthodox Anglican Church, Reformed Episcopal Church, Southern Episcopal Church, United Anglican Church, United Episcopal Church of North America. I am not making these groups up.

Do you doubt me now? I didn't think so. Find a company that makes purple fabric or that sews lappets. Then spread discontent. Start cashing the checks.

UPDATE: Clearly, Raspberry Rabbit has a better intelligence network than me. Another potential mastermind of the Anglican conflicts is revealed in this posting. If you want to fund my Anglican research, black ops, or liturgical junkets, please drop large piles of unmarked bills in my driveway. I don't like to be outdone by RR, and I think I might work toward Anglican reconciliation chatting it up with various and sundry primates in business class over the Atlantic.

Their true religion?

2007-09-06T02:23:00.000+01:00

The secessionists are beginning to reveal something about the kind of church they want and about the Gospel they preach. I hope the congregations in the US who are affiliating with them, and their newly minted bishops, are reading the latest.

From Nigeria comes this: "Homosexuality and lesbianism are inhuman. Those who practice them are insane, satanic and are not fit to live because they are rebels to God's purpose for man." These hateful words, oft-quoted in the blogosphere over the last day or so, are from the Bishop of Uyo. (see update, below)

Not fit to live? That means it's OK to kill them? This is not only an outrage in the realm of human decency, it's a sinful invitation to ignore Christ's teachings of love. I can live with the idea that Bishop Orama considers gays and lesbians to be his enemies. But I don't think he has read his Bible. Jesus says to love your enemies, not kill them. Oh, and this outrage is a violation of the recent Anglican pronouncements the secessionist crowd likes to (selectively) quote.

Here's this, from Paragraph 146 of the Windsor Report: "Moreover, any demonising of homosexual persons, or their ill treatment, is totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral care."

A quote from Lambeth 1.10: "...calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals..."

Oddly, I could only find one conservative who condemned this invitation to kill GLBT Christians, while others seem to think it's not all that bad.

So if you're considering joining one of these breakaway pseudo-Anglican churches, ponder this:

Many of these people teach a total disregard for the human lives of those with whom they disagree.
Many of these people reject the teachings and practice of Anglican Christianity, including recent statements of the Instruments of Communion. While the progressive wing cannot -- and might not wish to -- claim "Windsor compliance," it is certainly true that the secessionists have no use for any conventional Anglican authority.
Many of these people, as evidenced by the proliferation of sundry bishops, have no desire to foster catholic Christianity.

This is not just the bishop of a diocese in distant Nigeria. This is +Martyn Minns' colleague in his House of Bishops. What does Bishop Minns have to say about this? What do this who file into the Truro Church each Sunday have to say about the teachings of their church? I hope someone shows up at their vestry meeting with lots of questions.

UPDATE: Over at Stand Firm, there is a post saying that the UPI report was incorrect. We'll need to see how this all turns out. Many of my points, above, remain. Remarks similar to these are consonant with other Church of Nigeria statements, and CANA members in the US should still ask questions, especially in light of the failure of +Minns, et al, to speak up. There is also no public statement distancing Akinola from these remarks on the Church of Nigeria website. Thankfully, The Lead is reporting that +Rowan Williams is looking into these remarks, and he has repudiated the statement.

On their way?

2007-09-05T12:38:00.000+01:00

I can't help wondering if Chris Sugden's piece blogged by Scott yesterday isn't telling us about the next steps in the conservative strategy. It's too conveniently timed, to coincide with the creation of bishops in Kenya and Uganda, and just before the American House of Bishops meeting.

It seems to me very unlikely that anything the House of Bishops says, however carefully worded it is and however much it seeks to enable dialogue and communion to continue, will satisfy the hardline conservatives. The love they have for Jesus and the church (as Scott mentioned) sadly doesn't appear to be matched by a love for the people in it - or a desire to maintain communion.

I wouldn't be very surprised if we saw the secession of three or four African provinces together with their attendant US based bishops, with the support of a few bishops from some other provinces - and, quite possibly, the announcement of another extra-provincial bishop for the lucky Church of England. As Chris says in his article, it won't be a schism. But it won't be a revolution either. It'll be a splintering, in time honoured protestant fashion.

It will be very sad. The Anglican Communion, for all its faults and inadequacies, does try to enable people across the world and from all shades of the theological spectrum to continue to stay in touch, talk, and learn from each other. At its best it models something rather wonderful, by bringing together so many different people with different experiences and different understandings of the love of God.

The Lambeth Conference planned for next year, far from being "dumbed down" has high aims - aims which even the fighting factions in Iraq are, we learn, tentatively beginning to embrace by meeting in Finland. The aim is to gain in respect for each other by listening (that word again) and talking to, studying with, caring and praying with one another.

The splintering will not stop that happening at Lambeth, even if others are meeting at the same time. What it will do, as the Archbishop of York pointed out recently, is render good communication with those who have chosen to secede impossible. I am sure that the Spirit is moving within the Communion through the dialogue which is happening and through the way we're all being challenged. Those who leave will take themselves out of that movement of the Spirit. Maybe they want that - it's safer that way - but it's sad nonetheless.

It will, of course, enable those of us who celebrate the miracle of creation in all its rich, strange diversity to do that more effectively - and it will enable us to work at a true and genuine theology of relationships which affirms all people. For, as Archbishop Tutu says, "Christ, when he was lifted up, did not say 'I draw some people to myself.' He said 'I draw all, all, ALL!'

Schism, revolution, or treason?

2007-09-04T19:48:00.000+01:00

Chris Sugden+ has written a provocative piece over at Anglican Mainstream. In it, he attempts to recast the behavior of the secessionists as "revolution" rather than "schism." This piece seems to be a justification for Anglicans to ignore their ordination vows and align with extra-provincial bodies.

The piece ends on a quaint note: "The Communion will remain, but the form and the leadership will change just as the 13 American colonies remained, but their form and leadership changed." Who could argue with that? Isn't that the story? A band of idealistically pure leaders freed people from tyranny? Revolutions are not always so simple. Looking back from this vantage point, it would be possible to dismiss the flip side of revolutions. When they succeed, their leaders become revolutionary heroes. But when they fail, or when a coup plot is defeated, there are no heroes -- only traitors.

(Ordinarily, I would refrain from using inflammatory language like this. But Sugden's invocation of political metaphor invites a reply, and this reply seems to warrant the same metaphor.)

Let's look at a few bits of his argument. He begins:

Revolution in common parlance is an overthrow of the existing order. But when a wheel has completed one revolution, a point on its circumference has returned to its point of origin. And a revolution is a return to the beginning, a restoration.

Well, yes, I suppose. But the problem is that restoration depends on one's perspective. Progressives, for example, point to the "authentic" Gospel and say that their inclusion of all people is a return to faithful obedience to Christ's call. Mormons claim to have restored the true Christian church. What bits are we restoring, and what bits aren't we restoring? No, this "wheel" language is a red herring. We're really talking about an overthrow of the existing order. Anything else is an attempt to candy-coat what's happening.

Archbishop Orombi of Uganda has said "However we come to understand the current crisis in Anglicanism, this much is apparent: The younger churches of Anglican Christianity will shape what it means to be Anglican. The long season of British hegemony is over."

Ah, yes, another favorite trope of the conservatives. The problem is that most of the money and many of the ideas are coming from the West. Looking at many of the photos of the "new missionaries," it's hard to see the end to Western hegemony. This "crisis" is as much an extension of American entitlement as it is a rejection of British imperialism.

In other words, the future is to be found in returning to the key Reformation and evangelical principles that are the strength and core of the Anglican expression of Christian faith.

Here again some unexamined ideas are trotted out and paraded as logical arguments. What are the essentials of Anglicanism dating from the Reformation? To be sure, I think many progressives greatly misunderstand the via media. But it's also true that conservatives fail to emulate the Elizabethan comprehension. First evidence: the proliferation of jurisdictions in the US, making a mockery of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. The English Reformation ushered in ideas of a church that would be catholic and reformed, informed by human reason and Holy Scripture. Mostly the English Reformation ushered in the idea that there would be one church, avoiding the then-understood excess of Rome and extreme of Geneva.

In other words, since the Archbishop of Canterbury has not provided for the safe oversight of the orthodox in the United States, he has forfeited his role as the one who gathers the Communion. This has become further obvious with the refusal of the invitation to the Lambeth Conference by the leaders of over half the Anglicans in the world and the questioning by some English bishops as to whether they will attend.

This is insulting to actual victims of all kinds. No "orthodox" person in the US is "unsafe." Uncomfortable, perhaps, but not unsafe. That distinction belongs to gay and lesbian people, to name one class, who are under threat of death and physical violence around the world, even within the US. Despite calls from the Windsor Report to shun violence and to provide pastoral care for gay and lesbian Christians, the conservative movement has stood by while people are beaten and killed, sometimes in Christ's name. So, please, do not claim that you're unsafe. It demeans victims, and it demeans you.

And what about the refusal "by the leaders of over half the Anglicans in the world" to attend Lambeth? Well, I wouldn't recommend that the conservatives count their proverbial chickens until they're hatched. +Akinola and +Orombi might stay home -- or attend a shadow conference in London -- but some of their bishops will be at the Lambeth Conference.

I continue to be baffled at the conservative insistence on preaching numbers as a measure of truth. Let's look at a few examples. The dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy, and Pittsburgh (I picked three at random) are not exactly booming, as you might expect them to be, given the conservative love of citing statistics. For that matter, if they want to be on the "winning team," then it seems to me they'd need to become Roman Catholic, or Muslim, or even Mormon. Those groups have more impressive numbers than the Anglican Communion in terms of size or growth. Of course, the conservatives need to use those particular numbers because it's not so impressive to talk about the number of provinces who will actually shun Lambeth. We haven't seen that number yet, but it will be in the single digits.

So are we seeing a schism or a revolution? A long overdue development is taking place, namely that significant and meaningful leadership is now being given in the Anglican Communion by Christians from Africa and Asia. This is being expressed in the very practical issues of first determining to stand by the teaching of the Communion; secondly refusing to attend a dumbed-down Lambeth Conference which will not address this issue decisively and which will include those who have deliberately defied that teaching; and thirdly by providing the orthodox oversight that orthodox Anglicans are requesting.

I'll agree that leadership from outside Europe and North America is desperately needed and long overdue. I welcome the increased global engagement that this "crisis" has planted. But what about the rest? What is the "teaching of the Communion?" If the reference is to Lambeth 1.10 from 1998, then surely one must also look at previous Lambeth resolutions to note that the "teaching of the Communion" has changed on all manner of issues. There simply is no tradition of establishing settled teaching at Lambeth, as much as that must frustrate some people. Even on the issue of human sexuality, one can see a change from 1978 through 1988 to 1998.

As for a "dumbed-down" conference, I'll remind anyone to read history. While previous Lambeth Conferences have passed resolutions, the presenting crisis for the very first Lambeth Conference in 1867 was not the primary topic of its resolutions. Instead, the bishops mostly focused on their common interests and beliefs. The 2008 Lambeth Conference may not spend most of its time focusing on legislation or on the topic at hand, but that practice would be a return to its origins, the activity of the wheel of revolution, of which you are so fond. Finally, the notion that orthodox Anglicans have not had adequate oversight suggests only that adherents to this idea do not grasp the catholicity of the church. The day we begin to establish a new see every time we don't like our bishop is the day we have utterly lost our catholicity. And that, my friends, would be a real revolution.

I return to Sugden's political metaphor. Is this "schism" or "revolution" or "treason"? Time will tell. I can say only that bishops, priests, and deacons throughout the Anglican Communion have taken ordination vows, often to uphold the disciple of the church. To go about setting up innovative parallel jurisdictions, and to fan the flames of crisis with those who merely want to worship in their congregations on Sundays is to ignore the discipline (the unity, the rule of law) of the church. To imagine that it's OK to walk away from the church and take its property is to contemplate the idea that whatever I give to the church still belongs to me, and that is not only a misunderstanding of catholic Christianity, it's poor stewardship.

When you're busy undermining the structures of the church, ignoring solemn vows, and scheming to remove property, I invite you to at least contemplate the possibility that there is another side to every story, including revolutions. That said, I do not think that Chris Sugden is a traitor. I imagine that he is acting in good faith, trying to reform the church that he must love dearly. But just as I am certain he is not a traitor, I am also certain he is not a heroic revolutionary leader.

Rule of law, but only when it's convenient?

2007-09-04T07:00:00.000+01:00

The pace of dissent has quickened lately in the Anglican Communion. It seems that each week brings news of another Episcopal priest who is becoming a bishop in this or that province. Every days brings another dire pronouncement about the imminent threat of schism, and somehow this schism must be averted by...schism.

Over at The Episcopal Majority, Robert J. Brooks+, from the Diocese of Connecticut has done a good job of crystallizing the situation from a legal/canonical standpoint. He makes it clear that the conservative wing is operating in utter disregard of the proper mechanisms for dealing with these issues.

If these ideas for new structures are so compelling, they should be brought by their advocates to the next meeting of the ACC in 2009 as proposed amendments to the ACC Constitution. The proponents can then take their chances on others agreeing with them in a free and open debate in the ACC, and should they be passed, in the General Synods of all the Provinces, with 2/3 required for ratification. It is past time to return to the rule of law, not "men" (which I am using explicitly since that is who the proponents are), and stop acquiescing to bullies who loudly assert new structures without submitting to the written constitutional framework unanimously put in place for this purpose by all the Provinces. It is past time to stop giving these asserted new structures credence by acting as if they really existed and had standing in constitutional law.

The Tanzania meeting of the Primates defined a deadline of September 30, 2007, for the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church to violate the Constitution of its own Church to accede to the two actions demanded in the ultimatum. As noted previously, this ultimatum from the Primates has no constitutional legality in the Communion itself because the ACC Constitution would have to be amended by October 1 to remove The Episcopal Church from the constitutional schedule of Provinces in order to deliver on their threat. Also, the Anglican Consultative Council, of which we and the Canadians are still members by that membership schedule, would have to be convened to pass the amendment, with 2/3 of the General Synods ratifying it, or "alter the status" of this Church with the assent of 2/3 of the Primates at a convened meeting.

The secessionists like to quote the Dar es Salaam Communique (selectively, I might add), but they don't much like it when someone points out that the primates had no right to make their demands in the first place. Why don't the secessionists play by the book? Because the book doesn't work well with bullies.

What's this all really about?

2007-09-01T18:13:00.000+01:00

Every now and then, someone finds a way to shed light on this whole Anglican Communion mess in such a way that much is revealed with new clarity. I commend to you this posting from the Anglican Centrist. I usually try to find a very brief quote, but this is a tricky one to excerpt.

Have a look at this:

The trouble with Separatists, as with madmen, as Chesterton would say, is that they are trapped in the well-lit room of one idea.

The debate over sexual ethics and the will of God is a deal breaker for some folks in itself. They admit to no new readings of Scripture other than the traditional view -- on this matter -- yet they are willing to admit a host of new readings of Scripture on other matters. There can be no debate, they say, and certainly no degree of experimentation in praxis with new readings, because to do so is unfaithfulness as they see it. Never mind that within the current faction of Separatists there are folks who disagree over the sacraments -- are they means of grace or not? There are disagreements over salvation -- i.e. is their annihilation, purgatory or eternal torture for the unsaved in this life? There are disagreements over the ordination of women, and the remarriage of divorced folks. In all of these cases people in past centuries broke communion, bodies and nations in disputation.

But now, we are to understand, the issue of homosexuality is the deal breaker. It is absurd, of course. Even the spokespeople for the Separatists will say it is not about sexuality -- and yet, that's all they point to, repeatedly, as the matter at hand.

Take Archbishop Gomez, for example, who recently preached at the consecrations in Kenya. He, the head of the Covenant Design Group, has engaged in an outright violation of the text of Windsor, and has participated in an action of the sort the latest Primates' communique speaks ill of. He has thrown in his lot, once and for all, with the Separatists. And, of course, he has bought their line of thought -- that this is not about homosexuality -- except -- in fact -- it is.

It is about homosexuality, because if it weren't for that single issue, they would have nothing around which to get find enough political heat or common cause. This is the classic wedge issue of recent times, and it is being used to divide. The claim -- or the meta claim -- is that this is all about faithfulness to Christ. But that's bogus, upon closer analysis, because all sides profess faith in Christ, and seek to live in Christ, and to do what God willeth. The only debate here is "How do we live faithfully in light of Scripture, in accordance with living tradition, and by the application of Reason (which of course involves rational thought in the context of human experience.)"

A simple intellectual test which comes in handy here illustrates that today's Separatists are indeed fixated, not on faithfulness, but on homosexuality. Imagine that instead of being homosexual, Gene Robinson were merely remarried after divorce. The Lord Jesus himself spoke to this issue -- and condemned it. Would we honestly be at the brink of Schism, and thanks to the self-righteous priggishness of Drexel Gomez and the rest, if this were so? Of course not. Or what if Gene were extremely wealthy, and tightfisted at the same time? What if he advocated for war, regularly? What if he had been a major shareholder in Enron, and was unapologetically proud of the money he made there, with full knowledge of what had gone on?

Well, yes, there it is. As I keep saying, this division we face is not really over scriptural authority, because conservatives are willing to accept innovation in other matters. It's not about rigid adherence to New Testament discipleship, because Jesus said much more about rejecting wealth than about sexuality. No, whatever else is going on, for many people this is a wedge issue, being used to drive some people out of the church while others become more powerful. Thank you for telling it like it is.

Good advice for bishops

2007-09-01T06:40:00.000+01:00

From our friends over at The Episcopal Majority comes this advice to the House of Bishops from Nigel Taber-Hamilton+:

1. Remember you are, first and foremost, members of "the Laos," a Greek word which is the original root for our contemporary word "laity" – a word best translated as "the whole and undivided People of God." Remember, therefore, that you are members of this "Laos" by virtue of your baptisms, for baptism is the foundational order of ministry and is much more important than any subsequent derivative Ordering for specific ministerial tasks.
2. Remember that your Ordered ministry is representative: your fundamental responsibility as bishops is to exercise your episcopal ministries on behalf of the baptized, who have called you out to fulfill specific tasks on behalf of the baptized and who have loaned you some of the authority of the baptized for you to do so. You are "stewards of God's mysteries" (1 Cor 4:1) on behalf of every baptized person, not just some of us.
3. Remember that primary among the specific tasks the baptized have given you at this time is "to guard the faith, unity, and discipline of the Church" (BCP, p. 517). This surely means to guard the biblical vision of baptism as the marker of all Christians’ common identity and the source of every Christian’s authority to minister; and to guard the authentic vision of Eucharist as God's welcoming table where none are turned away, and where no discriminatory impediment is placed in the way of the baptized's authority to select whomever it chooses to represent it.

Seems about right. Too often those of us in orders forget that all ministry begins at the font. And too often, we all forget that the church belongs to God and God's whole people, not just to a few.

Show me the money: works both ways

2007-08-31T23:56:00.000+01:00

Back in July, I supported the call of four retired ECUSA bishops for transparency from 815 with regard to funding litigation expenses. Now these four, plus one more, have issued another public letter. The conservatives insist that there's a vast left-wing conspiracy, and they want to know all the details about the money. I'm not sure about the conspiracy part, but I do think a healthy dose of transparency would be a Good Thing.

Among others who have undertaken this challenge, Fr. Jake has supplied some numbers. Jan Nunley+ posted an unofficial report on her quasi-official 815 blog. These are pretty good reports, but of course it would be even better for 815 to publish an official report to quell critics.

Also in Fr. Jake's recent blog posting is a set of questions (originally written by Nigel J. Taber-Hamilton) for the conservative groups. As long as the right is posing questions, maybe they'd like to answer questions similar to the ones asked of 815 by the retired bishops?

Here they are:

1 ) How much money has the Network, the American Anglican Council, and the other affiliated groups spent since 2003 on preparing to abscond with real property rightfully belonging to all Episcopalians?

2) In what budget(s) are those expenditures accounted for? Where have you published the information?

3) Has any income intended for mission been diverted for use in this theft? If so, how much and from what sources?

4) How much compensation has any law firm whose principles are part of your various affiliated organizations received for servicing this theft and the consequent litigation?

OK, folks on the right, show us the money. Surely you'll publish a report quickly, since you feel that this information should be public. As we work toward an inclusive church -- and some of us work against this -- we should all avoid secrets and seek transparency.

Mitred scofflaws

2007-08-31T21:29:00.000+01:00

Some of the so-called Global South primates are astounding. They claim that ECUSA has departed from church tradition, imperiling the unity of the church. And then, in a departure from church tradition, they proceed to create four parallel Anglican jurisdictions in the US. I'm not counting the alphabet soup of "continuing" churches that aren't really in communion with anyone else. Now we have Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya, and we're on the eve of a Ugandan bishop operating in the US. I would expect the Southern Cone to join the crowd any day now.

OK, so I can kind of understand the idea of providing pastoral support for conservatives, if it were true that there is inadequate care from ECUSA. But why do we need so many bishops of so many persuasions? How does that manifest of the truth of Jesus Christ's one church?

And then there's +Drexel Gomez. His time as chair of the Covenant Design Group should be over now. Neither +Katherine Jefferts Schori (as primate of the province at the center of the controversy) nor a public dissenter should be responsible for finding the common covenant that will re-unite the Communion. By his participation in the recent consecrations in Nairobi, +Gomez has shown that he does not believe reconciliation is possible. Fine. But he shouldn't carry on the charade by participating in initiatives aimed on bringing the Communion back together. For a long time, I celebrated +Rowan William's choice to invite +Gomez to chair the CDG, believing that it would help one more primate see the big picture. Sadly, that seems to have failed.

And what of +Bob Duncan and +Jack Iker? They have clearly just violated their ordination vows to uphold the discipline of the church. Our canons (and by "our," I include +Duncan and +Iker for now) clearly do not provide for parallel jurisdictions.

Since the Windsor Report was published, progressives have not consecrated openly GLBT bishops, and we have not authorized rites for same-sex blessings. Those were the requests of the Report. Meanwhile, the conservatives have pursued a relentless agenda of division, dissent, and destruction. I respect their difference of opinion, but I do not respect the duplicitous participation in the very institutions they seek to undermine.

+Duncan and +Iker should resign as ECUSA bishops. +Gomez should resign from the CDG. And some of this lot should not be surprised when they are not invited to Lambeth.

Inclusive means that everyone is welcome. But inclusive does not mean that every kind of illicit behavior is allowed. Make no mistake: any ECUSA cleric who participated in the Nairobi consecrations was engaged in canonically illicit behavior.

I do not want a homogeneous church, in terms of theology or sexuality, or anything else. I would gladly worship and serve with conservatives of very different theological convictions from my own. But the day they stop believing in the possibility of grace in the Episcopal Church is the day they should leave. The same goes for liberals, by the way. If I ever began to pursue an agenda to destroy the Episcopal Church, someone should suggest that I find another home. Let's hope the "Windsor Bishops" hold their colleagues accountable to the vows they've all taken.

(See also what Mark Harris and Greg Jones have to say about this.)

Inclusive -- one person at a time?

2007-08-31T21:01:00.000+01:00

There's another side of the coin to what Giles posted today. In addition to the prevalent practice of relegating GLBT people to the closets of our churches, we often manifest an unconscious bias in favor of nuclear families with about two children, a minivan, and maybe a pet or two. Consider this example:

I had been attending a new church for a little over two months, when something changed. I was active in this church, attending Sunday school and participating in the hand bell choir, among other things. During that time a few people made me feel very welcome, especially those people who sat around me or who were in my Sunday school class. Then, one Sunday, I was welcomed with a fervor I had not seen before. I was offered a name tag, asked to sign the guest registry, and asked my name more often and with more enthusiasm than had previously been the case.

You might be wondering what changed that week, but I don't have to wonder. It’s not that people began to see that I might have some gifts to offer the church. No one seemed interested in the fact that I had taught Sunday school at my previous churches, or that I had served as deacon at those churches, or that I preached at those churches, filling in for the ministers when needed. No one seemed interested that I am a well-educated, 30-something male, despite the fact that churches say they clamor for this demographic group. Most churches, you see, don't really seek out people in that demographic group - unless they’re married, that is.

And that should explain what happened that Sunday. The woman l was dating, who happened to live in a different state, was visiting me. Thus, I was no longer all of those things I mentioned above; I was a part of a couple, and now the church actively sought me out and almost begged me to return.

I saw this in my weekly Leading Ideas email, which I recommend. And I also recommend that we consider what it means to be inclusive. It's much more than just being "gay-friendly," though that's a good start. To be inclusive means no more and no less than welcoming all of God's children. All of God's children. Even when there's no minivan involved.

(Vignette from “A Single Voice” by Kevin Brown, first published in The Clergy Journal)

Partners, spouses and friends welcome?

2007-08-31T14:06:00.000+01:00

As part of IC's preparations for Lambeth 2008, our Patrons (the Archbishop of Mexico and the Primus of Scotland) are coming to England at the end of September for a series of seminars and events.

We're also having a party to thank those who've worked hard for an inclusive church over the past five years.

On the invitation I put "partners, spouses and friends are welcome". Then I started to reflect on that.

The Church of England still has a culture of secrecy and avoidance around lesbian and gay relationships. Although there a great many LGBT clergy in the C of E, and many have entered into civil partnerships, the official line seems to be that we (grudgingly acknowledging we exist!) are single and celibate. Civil partnerships receive hardly any official acknowledgement.

I was surprised recently to receive an informal invitation from one of my senior colleagues inviting "you and your partner or spouse." A chink of light.

We still have a long way to go, in the C of E, before the church will be able to be openly and fully inclusive. We have to reach a position, not yet reached by Synod and the House of Bishops, where same-sex relatioships are seen as part of God's blessing. But then we still have to reach a position where women are consecrated as bishops. And many other provinces have further to go before they are willing to recognise how many ways the Spirit moves within the Churches....But in spite of that thank God for the Communion with all its complexities - painful though it is

I can well understand the frustration in TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada about the slow pace of change. We're working hard on this side of the pond to bring about movement - we're trying to do it through welcoming people who aren't yet convinced about the legitimacy of both developments, through discussion, prayer, contact and fellowship. It's slow.

We're also trying to do it through showing that the church hasn't fallen apart - in fact it's flourishing - despite or even because of the presence of happy and integrated LGBT clergy. Through being there right at the heart of the church's life - across the hierarchy. And that's all happening too. Slowly because in many Dioceses there's a culture of fear.

But I'm hopeful about the future. Progressive means "moving forward...." I hope and pray, alongside all shades of Anglican praxis and theology.

Partners, spouses and friends are welcome - or will be!

Fun with rumors! Plots! Secrets! Shhh....

2007-08-29T21:41:00.000+01:00

Not too long ago, I posted news of rumor I heard. My interest was less in rumor-mongering than in pointing out the absurdity of our present situation. Shouldn't it be utterly ridiculous to imagine a parallel jurisdiction in England, because England isn't properly Anglican? Interestingly, those who checked on the veracity of the rumor did not hear vehement denials, and it seemed to have some legs.

In the last few days, there's been a flurry of speculation over the news that the computer of +Martyn Minns was used to edit +Peter Akinola's latest tirade. Personally, I think it's fine if Minns wrote bits of Akinola's rant. No doubt, Akinola agreed with whatever appeared under his name, and it seems reasonable for colleagues to work together. On the other hand, it might be helpful to tone down the angry reactions from conservatives whenever someone suggests that Virginia (with piles of American money) is having a big influence on Abuja. Now, personally, I picked up on a detail that other blogs have dropped, I think. Did you notice the list of names of people who worked on the document? Yes, Chris Sugden was on the list! Would a mere priest be allowed to change episcopal punctuation? I think not! But a bishop-elect would do just fine. Hmmm...

Speaking of secessionists, the Anglican Centrist had a fun rumor lately. There's some buzz around the idea that a large chunk of dissenters may flee Canterbury for Rome. I doubt if it's true, and I hope they speak with some Romans before they head over. They'll be in for a rude awakening. Will Benedict contemplate giving them property if they decide to split? Not even for a nanosecond. Will congregations be allowed to vote their preference on matters of doctrine? No way. Will priests be able to flout their bishop's authority? Not likely. For all the complaining about the ECUSA hierarchy, most of the right-wing hijinks have been allowed to continue unfettered. I can assure these future Romans that they'd better think twice if they imagine their congregationalist notions will fly outside ECUSA.

Lastly, you may have seen the cloak-and-dagger manual over at Stand Firm. I couldn't even satirize that. Our church has become a place where we need to learn to hide our work? We need to master the skill of techno-obfuscation? This veil of secrecy should reveal something to all of us. God's love is open and transparent. In the Gospels, just as in life, the good guys don't plot in secret. In life, as in James Bond movies, all the plotting happens secretly, sometimes even in fake volcanoes. Shouldn't it tell us something that these dissenters gather in secrecy, to engage in secret business? Contrast that, if you will, with the progressive side. Our plans for Lambeth 2008 are right out in the open. Anyone can come to a meeting of the St. Anne's network, and the minutes are posted for all to see. We meet in a church, not in a fake volcano.

Here's my idea. Let's talk about rumors, but only for humor and jest. We could use a few laughs in the Communion. And let's stop the schoolyard whispering. It's not polite, and it's probably not God's love at work.

Luke Timothy Johnson on scripture and human sexuality

2007-08-29T03:36:00.001+01:00

We progressives are often accused (with good reason, sadly) of biblical ignorance. We're told that we are ignoring the "plain words" of the Bible. Too often, we do indeed state our case based on rights or experience, without reference to the Bible.

I was very interested then, when I saw (over on the Anglican Centrist) a link to a piece with analysis by Luke Timothy Johnson on human sexuality and the Bible. Johnson, as you may know, is no Bible slouch. He's a serious academic, well respected by people of many points of view. Here's a bit of Johnson's writing:

Our situation vis-à-vis the authority of Scripture is not unlike that of abolitionists in nineteenth-century America. During the 1850s, arguments raged over the morality of slave-holding, and the exegesis of Scripture played a key role in those debates. The exegetical battles were one-sided: all abolitionists could point to was Galatians 3:28 and the Letter of Philemon, while slave owners had the rest of the Old and New Testaments, which gave every indication that slaveholding was a legitimate, indeed God-ordained social arrangement, one to which neither Moses nor Jesus nor Paul raised a fundamental objection. So how is it that now, in the early twenty-first century, the authority of the scriptural texts on slavery and the arguments made on their basis appear to all of us, without exception, as completely beside the point and deeply wrong?

The answer is that over time the human experience of slavery and its horror came home to the popular conscience-through personal testimony and direct personal contact, through fiction like Uncle Tom’s Cabin, and, of course, through a great Civil War in which ghastly numbers of people gave their lives so that slaves could be seen not as property but as persons. As persons, they could be treated by the same law of love that governed relations among all Christians, and could therefore eventually also realize full civil rights within society. And once that experience of their full humanity and the evil of their bondage reached a stage of critical consciousness, this nation could neither turn back to the practice of slavery nor ever read the Bible in the same way again.
Many of us who stand for the full recognition of gay and lesbian persons within the Christian communion find ourselves in a position similar to that of the early abolitionists-and of the early advocates for women’s full and equal roles in church and society. We are fully aware of the weight of scriptural evidence pointing away from our position, yet place our trust in the power of the living God to reveal as powerfully through personal experience and testimony as through written texts. To justify this trust, we invoke the basic Pauline principle that the Spirit gives life but the letter kills (2 Corinthians 3:6). And if the letter of Scripture cannot find room for the activity of the living God in the transformation of human lives, then trust and obedience must be paid to the living God rather than to the words of Scripture. ...
The Pharisees’ sin has come to be called “scotosis,” a deliberate and willful darkening of the mind that results from the refusal to acknowledge God’s presence and power at work in human stories. If the neglect of Scripture is a form of sin, John suggests, a blind adherence to Scripture when God is trying to show us the truth in human bodies is also a form of sin, and a far more grievous one. Both our own sense of integrity as Christians, and our hope of entering into positive conversation with those who disagree with us, obligate us to engage Scripture with maximum devotion, love, and intelligence. If it is risky to trust ourselves to the evidence of God at work in transformed lives even when it challenges the clear statements of Scripture, it is a far greater risk to allow the words of Scripture to blind us to the presence and power of the living God.

Amen. Let's all open our Bibles, and let's also open our hearts, our minds, and our arms.

Speaking the truth -- with love

2007-08-29T03:24:00.000+01:00

Via The Episcopal Majority, I see that Episcopal Life Online has published an essay by Ken Howard+. It reads, in part:

Reading yet another story about schism in Episcopal Church ("More U.S. Episcopalians Look Abroad Amid Rift -- Overseas Prelates Lead 200 to 250 Congregations," June 17, 2007), I found myself growing a little bored with the topic. While we all know that divisions exist and that some congregations have seceded or are planning to, it gets tiresome after a while seeing the same tired old story repeated for the umpteenth time.
There seems to be a generally accepted storyline that runs something like this: Conservatives vs. Liberals. Traditionalists vs. Revisionists. Conservative congregations growing. Too-liberal Episcopal Church shrinking. Unfortunately, the storyline does not fairly portray the reality. Yet sheer repetition has given it an aura of "truthiness."

Take the title of the article for example. The term "rift," coupled with the estimate of 200-250 departing churches, makes it seem that a congregational exodus of seismic proportions is underway. Yet compared with the more than 7,500 congregations that make up the Episcopal Church nationwide, even that number barely registers as a tremor. But the article's estimate is much too high. To date, only a majority of members of 45 Episcopal congregations (less than 1%) have voted to leave the denomination (the higher figure quoted by the article includes congregations who were never a part of the Episcopal Church.) Compare this to the more than 1,200 Southern Baptist congregations that left their denomination to form the more moderate Cooperative Baptist Fellowship after the Southern Baptist Convention was taken over by its ultraconservative wing. Similar migrations of liberal and moderate parishioners have occurred from Episcopal congregations that have grown more conservative. But trends like these that don't fit the popular presumptions seem to fly under the reporting radar. There are some significant shifts going on in the Church at present, but the realignment runs in both directions.

The article also reported uncritically the "overseas prelates" (and their disaffected American congregations) self-portrayal as protectors of traditional Anglicanism against an aggressively anti-orthodox U.S. Episcopal Church. Unreported is their selectivity about which traditions they want to protect, rejecting traditions that do not suit them in favor of some very non-Anglican practices. The current rush of overseas prelates to outsource the Episcopal oversight of American congregations, for example, violates not only traditional Anglican practice, but ancient Christian practice as well. The reason most often given for violating this ancient tradition is to preserve orthodoxy. But this plethora of prelates raises the question of whose interpretation of orthodoxy will be enforced. Some of these foreign Anglican Churches, for example, accept the ordination of women as orthodox practice, while others do not. And the overarching enforcement body that some of them propose looks very much like a "magisterium" (i.e., top-down interpretation of Scripture by the hierarchy of the Church), a concept the Anglican Church has rejected since its inception.

Well said. I encourage you to follow the link and read the whole essay.

Disproportionate response?

2007-08-29T01:23:00.000+01:00

I try to be empathetic as I relate to other people, especially those with whom I disagree. Most of the time, I can manage to see things from another's perspective. It doesn't always help me agree with someone else, but I can usually find some common ground.

In the present "crisis" in the Anglican Communion, I am finding this increasingly difficult. I can understand that there are people who believe that sexual orientations (other than heterosexual) are choices. I can understand that there are people who believe that the church should not ordain GLBT people, nor should we bless GLBT relationships. Much of the time, I can understand the reason, whether it's cultural context, biblical hermeneutic, change resistance, or some other factor.

What I cannot understand is the increasingly shrill tone coming from the right. I do not see rampant persecution of conservatives in the US, though you would think so from various blogs. While some progressives (and a few progressive bishops) have behaved badly toward conservatives, I think most progressives would like to find a way to coexist with those of diverse points of view. It does not help to achieve reconciliation when describe a reality that does not seem to exist. (I keep saying this, and I'll say it here again: correct me if I'm wrong about the real absence of persecution.)

Lately we have reached new heights in rhetorical extremism.

We have countdown clocks to the September 30 primates' deadline. One commenter on that blog puts that angle in perspective, I think: "Q. What will happen after September 30? A. October 1"
+Peter Akinola has written about his "agonizing journey" to Lambeth. I can understand "unpleasant" or "irritating" but "agonizing?" Really?
+Bob Duncan says that "this is our Good Friday." That's an exaggeration, if ever I heard one. Who is suffering death because of this crisis? Good Friday, as this "orthodox" bishop should know, was a one-time event, part of God's saving work for the world. We are not redeemers, and our sacrifices are not to be compared with those of Christ. On further reflection, this comparison is more than an exaggeration, it's quite probably heretical. (I use that word advisedly; this is not an attack on Duncan, but a theological critique of this particular speech. I do not think Bob Duncan is, generally, a heretic.)
Now Peter Ould has produced a frightening video. It implies, I guess, that if things don't go well for conservatives, people will be burned at the stake, like the Reformation bishops of the 1550s? Ironically, it is only GLBT people who risk death these days. Mark Harris has some things to say about this video.

Let's all take a deep breath. For a time, liberals were the ones using rhetorical license, talking about people "being sacrificed on the altar of unity." Inflammatory language is not helpful as we seek reconciliation, whether it comes from right or left. Let's be careful with our words, and let's acknowledge that those with whom we disagree are generally acting in good faith, most often because they care about the church and about the salvation of the world.

Members of ECUSA take baptismal promises to "respect the dignity of every human being." Any Christian should know that all people are created in God's image. Whatever the reason, we should respect others, and that means being respectful. This suggests that our messages and our words matter. It's not just what we say, it's how we say it.

+Tutu speaks up

2007-08-23T16:09:00.000+01:00

Thanks to Fr. Jake, I noticed this over on Episcopal Life Online:

The Nobel Peace Prize laureate's plea came in a letter to the present Archbishop of Cape Town, Njongonkulu Ndungane, in which [Tutu] also called on all Anglican bishops to be "more welcoming and inclusive of one another." Archbishop Emeritus of Cape Town Desmond Tutu has appealed to Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams to invite all bishops to the 2008 Lambeth Conference, "even those irregularly consecrated or actively gay." ...
"Our Communion has always been characterized by its comprehensiveness, its inclusiveness, its catholicity," he said. "...we are really family, held together not so much by law as by bonds of affection. There is no family that is unanimous on every single subject." ...
"In a world where difference has led to alienation and even bloody conflict, the Church is God's agent to demonstrate that unity in diversity is in fact the law of life," Tutu said in his letter to Ndungane. "...We are most like God when we are welcoming and when we are as inclusive as possible, when we have broken down all middle walls of partition." ...
"Our Lord is weeping to see our Communion tearing itself apart on the issue of human sexuality when the world for which he died is ravaged by poverty, disease, war and corruption," Tutu said. "I beg you all in our Lord's name agree to disagree, argue, debate, disagree, but do all this as members of one family."

I have nothing to add. +Desmond Tutu has said what needs to be said. Amen.

40 days of anxiety

2007-08-22T03:08:00.000+01:00

Take a look. Babyblue Online has a countdown clock to the September 30 deadline. Now we all know, from action movies, that countdown clocks always spell imminent doom. But does the September 30 deadline carry such dire implications?

Let's think about this. No matter what happens on September 30, people in the parish I serve will be there for Sunday services. The next week, they'll be much more interested in all the dogs, cats, birds, and other creatures who will join us for the Blessing of Animals than what happened in New Orleans, Canterbury, Abuja, or Pittsburgh. And that's as it should be.

The Communion matters, but not that much. +Bob Duncan and his friends are having a big pow-wow immediately after the House of Bishops. If the Akinolites' demands are not met, then perhaps the extreme right will walk apart from the Anglican Communion. I will be sad that Christ's church has been divided again, but it will not change the mission of ECUSA or of the Anglican Communion.

So why the anxiety? Why the countdown clock? Simply put, the conservatives need to beat the crisis drum. It's not nearly as exciting to say "We agree on the fundamental truths of Christianity, but we disagree on a few points of moral theology." No one wants to donate money or consecrate new bishops when the stakes are low. Gloom and doom is the order of the day. It's the same tactic the Bush administration uses to get people to yield civil rights. Fear propels action, while suppressing articulate conversation.

Let's pray that lots of people will get some perspective on the September 30 deadline. Is division possible? Yes. Is this sad? Yes. Will it prevent Christians from being Christians? No. On the other hand, while we're busy putting up countdown clocks and writing dire messages, people are starving for food and for the bread of heaven. That's a real crisis, but we're too busy looking the wrong way to see it.

Clavier's thoughts on bishops

2007-08-22T02:35:00.000+01:00

Tony Clavier+ has written a thoughtful piece on bishops, communion, and autonomy. I suspect that neither right- nor left-leaning folks will care much for what he has to say. He's appealing for a genuine Communion, the mutual interdependence so often spoken of, but rarely contemplated in practice. This would suggest that neither ECUSA nor Nigeria may go it alone. I for one find Tony's writing compelling.

If the view triumphs that constituent Provinces are totally and completely free to do as they please, if that is what autonomy means -then I doubt there's much Christian to salvage. Who among us is so autonomous that she or he may do exactly as one pleases? Even God doesn't claim such an autonomy! If the view triumphs that individual provinces or groups of them are free to determine the ecclesial status of another Province without some mutual agreement that in a specific area they are free to determine the limits of communion, then what we mean by Communion is rendered nonsense. If provinces are free to set up shop in another jurisdiction unless mutual consent or at least an authoritative consent by the instruments of unity has been forthcoming, then what we mean by Communion is merely anarchy.

I have said elsewhere they I don't approve of deadlines. Well we have one coming up. I hope our bishops won't take umbrage about the deadline imposed by the primates, won't let pride assert itself, resist a "Bushish" response, don't wrap themselves in a Cause which assumes the mantle of total Gospel at the expense of that which is affirmed in our baptisms. I hope they will be humble in asserting that which they believe they are called to say and that say that clearly and will be equally clear in striving to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Jesus prayed that "They may be one." Please Lord, make that our prayer. It would be tragically odd if Twenty-first Century bishops by action or inaction embrace Sixteenth Century means and methods and rend the church for the sake of whatever. Do I believe that schism, who ever is responsible or who ever walks apart is worse than heresy? I think I now believe that schism is heresy and heresy is schism for both tear apart that very fabric designed to enable us to learn from God and from one another in God.

Those on the left are quick to point out the infractions of Nigeria, while wanting to press ahead of the Communion on teachings related to human sexuality. Those on the right are quick to criticize liberals, while wanting to violate the boundaries and authority of others. Suppose we said that we must live together? How would that change our collective behavior?

Let me be clear. I believe (as does nearly everyone in InclusiveChurch, I should think) that all orders of ministry and sacraments of the church should be open to all of God's children, without regard especially to sex and sexual orientation. At the same time, I believe that there are individuals, congregations, dioceses, and provinces who do not share this view, and they should not be compelled to agree. Imagine if people on the right and left cared passionately about those with whom we disagreed. Perhaps those of us on the left would act more empathetically and show some genuine humility. Perhaps those on the right would be willing to see that we agree on the central core of Christian teachings.

I commend Tony's essay, and I share his prayer for unity.

Proper response to an improper request?

2007-08-17T15:47:00.000+01:00

The Living Church has this:

Bishops who have made a public commitment to support the Windsor Report have asked the Archbishop of Canterbury to be clear and articulate in explaining what the consequences will be if the House of Bishops fails to give the assurances sought by the primates.

The self-styled Windsor Bishops could have asked me that question, and I would have provided an answer for less travel expense. The consequences will be that many primates are miffed.

I remind everyone that since the Windsor Report has issued, ECUSA has made no further "anti-Windsor" actions (i.e. ordaining openly GLBT bishops or authorizing same-sex blessings). Meanwhile, the so-called Global South bishops have habitually invaded others' jurisdictions -- in violation of the Windsor Report they love to selectively quote.

In addition to the question of consequences for ECUSA if our HoB rejects the terms of the Dar es Salaam communique, I'd like to ask a few questions:

What are the consequences for the primates of assuming more power than anyone has given them?
What are the consequences for ignoring requests to cease and desist provincial incursions?
What are the consequences for failure to begin the Listening Process requested by successive Lambeth Conferences in 1978, 1988, and 1998? (Fake "listening" doesn't count.)
What are the consequences for the church of sinful exclusion of many of God's children from God's house?
What are the consequences of spending all our energy on battles over (minor) points of moral theology, rather than focusing on our Gospel imperatives of evangelism and discipleship?

So, Windsor bishops, don't preach too much about consequences and the communique. There are more important matters are stake. The communique is an attempt to hijack the church and turn us from Anglican comprehension toward confessional extremism. The request itself is a symptom of the problem, and I think the best response might be a gentle "no thanks" and an invitation to honor the Lambeth resolutions from 1978 onward.

Of demons and decorum

2007-08-16T06:16:00.000+01:00

Bishop John Rucahana of the Shyira Diocese in Rwanda has achieved some blogospheric notoriety for his recent comments about the Anglican Communion. The most widely quoted line was this one, just to give you a flavor:

the Anglican Church in Rwanda will not be pushed into adopting the satanic behaviour of the "whites because they are whites."

Clearly the legacy of colonialism is still real, because the evil things that white imperialists did will linger for generations. While not every white person is tied directly to these forces, plenty of us still are. Anger at whites is then, if not always rational, at least comprehensible. I am more concerned about labeling things as Satanic, and the general tone of +John's remarks.

We are getting good, in Anglican debate, of shouting about one another, rather than listening and speaking. There's another way of being, as Richard Helmer+ reminds us:

So how can we best respond? The examples are already out there to behold: in our Presiding Bishop, amongst a number of the Primates, amongst many in our House of Bishops and many of their sisters and brothers elsewhere in the Communion, and amongst ordained and lay members of the church engaging with our Rwandan and other Anglican sisters and brothers around the world directly, in person, on the ground:
To such rhetoric, silence can often be the most charitable response.
When necessary, we need to allow people to find the door. We should never be in the business of shutting people in or taking hostages for any cause, even the most noble we can imagine, and that includes preserving unity.
Simple charity for those in deepest need: those scapegoated by the present rhetoric as well as the uncountable hungry and suffering around the world who are forgotten in the midst of a caustic in-house fight over red herrings.
Poisonous rhetoric screams for nothing short of a Divine response -- the true judgment and justice of compassion, the strength of the cross, the forbearance of Joseph, Job, and Jesus -- and a continuing patient calling forth of the struggling and pained humanity that is masked and hidden by vehemence and the truly demonic.

Much of that advice works just as well for the extremes on the left as on the right. We would do well to begin with empathy and live in charity. It's not only the Gospel way, it's just plain old good manners.

Conservatives continue to ignore Windsor

2007-08-15T05:00:00.000+01:00

I do not hold the Windsor Report and its "Windsor Process" in the same low regard as do many progressives. I am also not willing to elevate it to near-biblical authority in the same way that many conservatives, who quote it chapter and verse. The Windsor Report has some good recommendations, that if followed would help us to heal division and ease pain in our church.

Conveniently, many conservatives continue to ignore the Windsor Report's call for a cessation for illicit boundary crossings. Here's the latest article to cross the wire about the more recent in a long series of incursions:

"We are not undermining anybody’s authority. We are saving a situation of people who so much need us," Nzimbi told Reuters in response to criticism that African bishops were violating church rules.

Ugandan Archbishop, Mr Henry Orombi, also supported the decision. "In Uganda, we have provided a home for refugees from Congo, Rwanda and Sudan," said Orombi, who is consecrating John Guernsey of Virginia on September 2. "Now, we are also providing a home for ecclesiastical refugees from America," he added.

Well, how is this not undermining authority? Saying something is so does not make it so. And in what possible way are the situations of dissident Episcopalians comparable with actual refugees in Congo, Rwanda, or Sudan? +Orombi's choice of this melodramatic language is unfortunate. It cheapens the reality of the human tragedy that is unfolding, and I'm surprised he would do that. He certainly knows better, so perhaps he was misquoted. While some liberal bishops have indeed behaved badly, there is no actual broadly-rooted persecution of conservatives here, and almost no one is being spiritually orphaned.

Ironically, progressive ECUSA is accused of imperiling church unity. Meanwhile, we now have at least five parallel jurisdictions at work in the US, not counting the out-of-Communion groups that are impossible to keep track of. If the conservatives are truly concerned about unity, maybe the better response would be to refrain from schism and ecclesiastical incursions.

Finally, it's worth nothing that since 2004, when the Windsor Report was published, there have been no more GLBT bishops consecrated, and same-sex blessings have never been authorized by ECUSA (and only one or two dioceses can be said to have authorized them). Meanwhile, there have been untold episcopal boundary crossings by the right (and none by the left, that I know of). Progressives, like all Christians, have plenty of repenting to do. But these days, I think it is the conservatives who need to do some Windsor Process soul searching.

A perspective on blogging

2007-08-14T16:36:00.000+01:00

I'm catching up today on "old" bloggish things. I had marked a thoughtful post from Chuck Blanchard, and here it is, for your consideration. I've said similar things, so it's not surprising that I agree with Chuck.

When I was first seeking elective office, I received sage advice--don't assume that most voters are as interested in the ins and outs of the campaign as the political junkies who are actively following the campaign. Most voters have far more important things to do with their lives--they are earning a living, raising a family, and enjoying their hobbies. Politics may be yout hobby, but it is not theirs. The best way to run a campaign is to ignore the political junkies, and instead focus on what most voters really care about.

It seems to me that the Anglican blogosphere needs to hear this same advice. We are "Anglican junkies." We (on both sides of the great issues of the day) follow every word coming from the Archbishop of York or Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh. Heck, we even follow (and often blog about) the nuances of the comments at Stand Firm. Titus One Nine or Father Jakes' blog. Yet, at best, we number in the thousands. The Anglican Communion number in the millions. Anglican politics is our hobby, but it is not a hobby shared by most of our fellow Anglicans.

So what do our fellow Anglicans care about what is happening? To be truthful, not much. From what I can tell, most Episcopalians care far more about what is happening in their own congregation than what is happening in their Diocese, much less at 815 or Canterbury. It is of no help to a GLBT worshipper that [Gene] Robinson is a Bishop, if their own congregation is not welcoming. And it is of little concern to a conservative Episcopalian that they belong to a Network Church if they are not spiritually enriched by their worship service.

Too often, blogs have merely fanned the flames of controversy, rather than serving as a further connection among the faithful. Too often, blogs tear down, rather than building up. Too often, blogs have pointed toward extremism, rather than pointing toward Jesus Christ, our center. Amen, Chuck.

The +Senatmu interview

2007-08-14T16:21:00.000+01:00

It's been widely posted in the usual places, but those few readers who may have missed it, I encourage you to read a recent interview with +John Sentamu in its entirety. When +Ebor speaks, it's worth listening -- especially considering that he can plausibly speak from both a true Global South and a Global North perspective.

People on the extreme left and the extreme right will be disappointed in what he says. That seems about right to me -- fitting for someone who is seeking a via media. Some choice bits:

Stephen Crittenden: On another issue, Archbishop Sentamu, where do you stand in this seemingly endless debate about gay clergy and gay bishops that's breaking the Anglican communion apart?
John Sentamu: I think, for myself, that the 1998 resolution was very clear on where the church stood, and it actually invited everybody to engage in the listening process to gay and lesbian people. I still think it was not a good thing for the Episcopal church, while we are still in conversation, to proceed the consecration of [Gene] Robinson. I happen to think they actually pre-empted the conversation and the discussion. Now what I don't think should happen now [is] that the whole question of gay and lesbian people -- when we said we should listen to their experiences -- should now become the kind of dominant theological factor for the whole of the communion. Because really the communion, at the heart of it, has got to do a number of things. While on one hand upholding Christian teaching, [it] must also be very loving and kind towards gay and lesbian people because that's part of the resolution. And it must also continue to listen. And I'm not so sure, when some people speak as if the debate has been concluded, or we cannot engage with this, you're being very faithful to the resolution.
Secondly, the Windsor Report has made it very clear that the four instruments of unity -- that is, Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Primates Meeting -- should be the kind of instrument that actually allows all of us to talk. So those who now say, for example, that they don't want to come to the Lambeth Conference in 2008 because there may be people from ECUSA, well all I want to say is that church history has always taught us that churches have always disagreed. I mean, over the nature of Christ, the salvation of Christ, there were bitter, bitter, bitter disagreements in the early church, but everybody turned up at those ecumenical councils to resolve their differences. So my view would be, if you're finding this quite difficult, please do not stop the dialogue and the conversation.
Stephen Crittenden: Well indeed, you've warned -- just in the last few days --warned the conservative bishops of the global south that if they don't come to Lambeth, they'd effectively be severing themselves from the rest of the communion. That's a bit tough, isn't it?
John Sentamu: Well, the Lambeth Conference is an invitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury to all bishops of the Anglican communion to come to Lambeth and talk of matters of common concern. Now if there is already a fracture within the communion, I would have thought everybody would want to turn up in order to work out how we as a communion are going to go forward. Secondly, the Primates Meeting in Tanzania set out a fairly clear way ahead in its communiqué, as well as the whole question of the covenant. Now if we're going to continue to talk about the covenant at Lambeth Conference, and some people absent themselves from this, what is it that actually they think they're going to be achieving? You see, again I want to challenge them in terms of the debate about the nature of Christ and the salvation of Christ -- no church in the seven Ecumenical Councils absented themselves from it, because they were trying to represent the faith as they saw it. And only by people meeting around the table and having a conversation are you likely to find some kind of thing. I think the thing I was reacting to was a question that some people were planning an alternative Lambeth Conference, and my view was there can be no alternative Lambeth Conference, because the Lambeth Conference is always at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury in line with the four instruments of unity. And I cannot see an alternative, actually, for another Lambeth Conference. I mean that's the logic for it.
Stephen Crittenden: Or if you're going to have an alternative Lambeth Conference, you can't pretend at the same time that you're not pushing the whole communion towards schism, can you?
John Sentamu: You can't. You just can't. That to me is the logic, and the Windsor process was very clear of the need first of all for the Episcopal Church as well as the church in Canada, to actually express regret. But you know it went on also and said that those Primates in other provinces should also desist from going into the other people's provinces, and that hasn't actually been observed yet, and it was re-emphasised again at the Primates' meeting in Tanzania. So my view is to say to both sides, 'Come on, hold your fire. Let's get together the communion and gather at Canterbury and go through our conversation properly with Bible study, prayer, and reflection. And don't cut yourself off at this particular point, when what is needed is listening, is discernment, is holding on to the very basic beliefs which we've all got.' And I want to say the only way that I may not turn up to a meeting is if suddenly everybody was saying that the Lambeth Conference is going to redefine the doctrine of salvation or the doctrine of the nature of Christ, or the doctrine of creation. Those are not on the agenda. Everybody believes those truths.