The Episcopal Majority

A Final Word

2008-05-26T22:39:00.004-05:00

On August 9, 2006, when The Episcopal Majority blog came online we wrote the following:

It is clear that the heart of Anglicanism is under attack in America and it is time for a broad coalition of faithful Episcopalians to defend it. To that end, we have established this Web page to help continue the dialogue and to call for a national meeting to be held in Washington, D. C., on November 3 and 4, 2006. The purposes of this Internet gathering place and of our meeting will include the following:
Affirming the orthodoxy of the Episcopal Church in the United States and its adherence to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral
Affirming the traditional Anglican value of national autonomy and toleration of views involving matters of church discipline
Affirming the inclusive nature of the Episcopal Church where people actively work to get along
Opposing all attempts at home and abroad to curb or demean this Church, dismember it or evict it from the Anglican Communion
Establishing ties with national churches or groups abroad who are sympathetic to the Episcopal Church.

Since that dialogue began, many faithful Episcopalians have joined their voices to speak in defense of our beloved Church. At the national gathering in the fall of 2006, in Washington, D. C., representatives of nearly 50% of all dioceses gathered to show their support for our new Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and to consult with one another about developing strategies to respond to the charges being leveled at the Episcopal Church.

Much has happened over the past two years – most of which you will find chronicled on this blog. Our Presiding Bishop has shown wisdom and courage as she has decisively moved to defend the Church while offering the opportunity of reconciliation with those who have chosen to leave. The Episcopal News Service and other offices of The Episcopal Church are speaking out clearly on the issues confronting us.

Though there are still a relatively small number of parishes and dioceses who remain committed to schism, it is clear that the good heart of the Church is safe. Though the "strife is not o'er," it is becoming clearer that theirs is a dying cause; there is no groundswell for schism, and their numbers are not growing. We are no longer fearful, and certainly not fearful of a rightwing takeover of our Church.

We believe that the Rev. Lauren R. Stanley has beautifully summed up the condition of our Church in the previous and last posting on The Episcopal Majority blog:

News Flash: The majority of Episcopalians in the United States voted to stay in the Episcopal Church today.
They did so by going to church, by receiving Communion, by participating in God's mission and ministry, by praying, preaching and acting on God's holy word, by working with youth and the elderly, by doing all the myriad things that they have been doing through the history of the church, and by proclaiming, in many and varied ways, the love of God for all of God's beloved children.

With those words in mind, The Episcopal Majority will close its blog as of today. Though we do not intend to continue publishing, we will keep the blog online so that our friends may access the many fine articles to be found here.

We offer thanks to all who have contributed to this effort. You have made this a rich source of information for many people and have given a voice to those who felt they had no voice. Our deepest thanks are reserved for Lisa Fox who has presided over this blog from the beginning – who has written, edited, as well as patrolled the blogosphere for two years. And we thank our friend the Rev. Tom Woodward, who joined Lisa last winter.

As we close this venture, we continue to pray:

Gracious God, we pray for your holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strength it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ your Son our Savior. Amen.

Faithfully yours,

The Rev. David K. Fly
& The Steering Committee of The Episcopal Majority

The Rev. George C. Bedell
Ms. Lisa Fox
The Rev. Mark Harris
Ms. Judy Wright Mathews
The Rev. Tom Woodward

The Episcopal Church Isn’t Dying

2008-02-22T19:02:00.004-06:00

This column was distributed February 7 by the McClatchy-Tribune News Service. We received a copy from the Rev. Lauren Stanley and are proud to post it here.

About the Author: The Rev. Lauren R. Stanley is an appointed missionary serving in the Diocese of Renk in the Episcopal Church of Sudan. She is serving temporarily in the United States. Also see her essay, "The Vast Majority," published last week at the Daily Episcopalian.

The Episcopal Church isn’t dying
By Lauren R. Stanley
McClatchy-Tribune News Service

NEWS FLASH: The majority of Episcopalians in the United States voted to stay in the Episcopal Church today.

They did so by going to church, by receiving Communion, by participating in God’s mission and ministry, by praying, preaching and acting on God’s holy word, by working with youth and the elderly, by doing all the myriad things that have been doing through the history of the church, and by proclaiming, in many and varied ways, the love of God for all of God’s beloved children.

Why is this a news flash?

Because if you read the newspapers or follow events in the Church online, all you read about are the congregations that are splitting up, about priests leaving, about lawsuits in which the Episcopal Church and its dioceses are being forced to defend the canonical structures of the Church in order to keep the property of the Church.

And if that is all you read – in newspapers or online – no one would criticize you for thinking that the Episcopal Church in the United States was the verge of collapse.

So it is a news flash to find out the Episcopal Church is not teetering on that verge, and that the majority – the vast majority – of members have decided not only to stay, but to get on with God’s mission and ministry in this broken world.

Which just goes to prove, once again, that bad news still sells, good news does not.

The bad news is, some parishes, some priests, some individuals, and at least the leadership of one diocese have left the Episcopal Church. Which certainly is newsworthy.

But the good news far outweighs that bad news, for the good news is that the majority of Episcopalians in this country are staying.

The latter bit of news certainly is not exciting, and as one who spent more than two decades editing newspapers, I can tell you, excitement outsells the same-old-same-old every single day of the week.

But excitement doesn’t trump the truth, and the truth is, the Episcopal Church is in fine fettle, thank you very much, and those of us who are staying would like the rest of the world to know this.

We would like you to know of the extraordinary ministry we are doing: that every single day, some Episcopalian somewhere is heading off on a mission trip; the poor are fed; Sunday School lessons being prepared; children are cared for; prisoners are visited; prayers are said; sermons are prayed over; choirs are practicing music ancient and modern; the ill are comforted; advocacy for God’s kingdom is taking place; baptismal preparation is held; relationships are built; marriages solemnized; and loved ones are being buried in both grief and celebration.

We who engage in these ministries celebrate that fact every single day, and while it would be nice to get more coverage of this work, no one is doing this work for the coverage in newspapers and online. We are doing this work because this is what God has called us to do, and that’s good enough for us.

Part of what makes us stay is the realization that despite all the controversies revolving, in great part, about sexuality and gender, the majority of the Church, and the majority of the Anglican Communion to which the Church belongs, does not care one whit about those controversies.

The Rt. Rev. Musonda Trevor Mwamba, Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Botswana, said as much recently at the convention of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina. The majority of Anglicans around the world, he said, do not care about the disputes over sexuality, or about the possible split in the Anglican Communion.

“The truth of the matter is … we must understand the majority of African Anglicans, about 37 million, are not bothered by the debate about sexuality,” Bishop Mwamba told the North Carolina convention. “The majority of African Anglicans … have their minds focused on life and death issues, like AIDS, poverty … and not on what the church thinks about sex or the color of your pajama pants. Villagers who live on less than one dollar a day aren’t aware this is going on.”

You can read, in the newspapers or online, nearly every single day about some parish or priest or even a diocese leaving or talking about leaving the Episcopal Church. And if that is all the news you read about the Episcopal Church, it surely would seem that it is falling apart, and that its demise is imminent.

Which is why you need to read the following again:

NEWS FLASH: The majority of Episcopalians in the United States voted to stay in the Episcopal Church today.

Anglican Covenant, Round 2

2008-02-08T00:55:00.000-06:00

A new draft of an Anglican Covenant was released yesterday in London. You can find a copy of the Saint Andrews draft here, an important appendix here and the accompanying communiqué here. The group also issued commentary to the draft here.

The good folks at the Episcopal Cafe did a fine job in the initial reports. Mark Harris provided an early analysis.

We were also pleased to receive this notice from the British group, the Modern Churchpeople's Union.

Press Release - for immediate use

The proposed Anglican Covenant (The St Andrew's Draft) would only make the church more autocratic and outdated, says the Modern Churchpeople's Union (MCU).

'It takes the Anglican out of Anglicanism and there wouldn't be much left', says the MCU General Secretary, Jonathan Clatworthy. 'Until now we have lived together respecting differences of opinion. This Covenant would mean every time there's an objection someone will lay down the law'.

The wording of the Covenant itself is a clear improvement on previous drafts. But the sting is in the tail. An Appendix to the Draft Covenant sets out ways in which members of the Communion could be disciplined.

Members of the Anglican Communion would be asked to commit themselves to accept a 'request' from the Archbishop of Canterbury or the global Primate's Meeting. If they refused the request they could ultimately be expelled from the Communion.

MCU objects to the Covenant because it would centralize decision-making and reduce the traditional autonomy of Anglican Provinces. Just one Anglican Province could object to developments elsewhere and so changes could only be made at the speed of the slowest. Churches would become increasingly out of date.

MCU believes that the threat of expulsion will impoverish Anglican church life. The short timescales envisaged are likely to stunt discussion and suppress the search for consensus. The character of the international 'Instruments of Communion' which currently bind the Communion together would be changed as they take on semi-judicial roles.

The practical result of the St Andrew's Draft Covenant would be a much more centralized, authoritarian and unadventurous Communion. It is likely to magnify disputes and to turn them into judicial processes. It is likely to leave the Church less able to face the challenges of the modern world.

=========

MCU Contact Details:
Jonathan Clatworthy, 0845 345 1909, 07729 886272, office@modchurchunion.org
Paul Bagshaw, 01777 702515, PaulBagshaw@gmail.com

Background
The St Andrew's Draft Anglican Communion is at: http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/index.cfm
Further comments on this Draft will be published at: http://www.modchurchunion.org/Covenant.htm
where there are links to MCU responses to earlier drafts.

The Modern Churchpeople's Union is an Anglican theological society established in 1898. It is committed to promoting liberal theology and to the open-minded search for truth.

This email is from the MCU: http://www.modchurchunion.org/
Blog - Only Connect - http://modernchurchblog.blogspot.com/

CONTACT
Jonathan Clatworthy, General Secretary
MCU Office, 9, Westward View, Liverpool, UK L17 7EE • Tel: 0151 726 9730 • Email: office@modchurchunion.org

Unity and Diversity in the Lambeth Conference

2008-02-04T20:17:00.000-06:00

Editor's Note: This is the 4th and final part of Christopher Webber's essay on the history of the Lambeth Conference, continued from here. Information about the author and resources appears in Part 1.

Part IV: Living Together as a Truly Global Community
by Christopher L. Webber
Ordination of women a central and divisive issue
Study of homosexuality called for (1978)
“Impaired communion” recognized (1988)
Role of primates discussed

This view of Lambeth Palace was taken from across the Thames River in 2004, courtesy of Wikipedia.

1978

When the bishops met again, in 1978, women were already being ordained to the priesthood, not only in the Episcopal Church (U.S.), but also in Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Canada. Photo at right: July 29, 1974, marks the first ordinations of women to the priesthood in the United States, an event referred to as the “Philadelphia Eleven” when eleven women were "irregularly" consecrated. Photo courtesty Episcopal News Service.

Eight other provinces had agreed to do so or saw no objection. The bishops, faced with deep divisions on the issue, saw their role as pastoral care, not leadership; rather than take a potentially divisive stand, they pleaded for patience and unity. In an awkward sentence, unworthy of Cranmer’s heirs, they expressed the hope

(a) that Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches would see the holding together of diversity within a unity of faith and worship is part of the Anglican heritage; (b) that those who have taken part in ordinations of women to the priesthood believe that these ordinations have been into the historic ministry of the Church as the Anglican Communion has received it; and (c) that we hope the dialogue between these other Churches and the member Churches of our Communion will continue because we believe that we still have understanding of the truth of God and his will to learn from them as together we all move towards a fuller catholicity and a deeper fellowship in the Holy Spirit.

Matters of gender had not disappeared from the 1978 agenda, and the bishops reported that they viewed the issues surrounding human sexuality as being “complex.” There was a need, they said, “for theological study of sexuality in such a way as to relate sexual relationships to that wholeness of human life which itself derives from God, who is the source of masculinity and femininity.” In particular, while they “reaffirm[ed] heterosexuality as the scriptural norm,” they recognized “the need for deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research.” They recognized as well a need for pastoral concern and dialogue. Such dialogue had already begun in some places, but not enough. Twenty years later, it would cause angry debate. Thirty years later, it would be dividing the Communion and calling the very continuance of the Lambeth Conference and even the Anglican Communion into question.

Perhaps “dispassionate study” of homosexuality was still possible, but the issue of women’s ordination was beginning to cause serious divisions. 58 years after the conference had said that women might be ordained only as deaconesses, the conference was asking for patience and sensitivity and the possible provision of alternative ministry for those unwilling to accept women as priests and bishops.

1988

Resolution #1 of the 1988 Lambeth Conference revealed the depth of the divisions that were occurring. The bishops could speak openly of “the present impaired nature of communion.” If women were ordained as bishops, this would throw the problem into “sharper focus.” They asked that provinces respect the decisions of other provinces, whether they accepted them or not, and maintain “the highest possible degree of communion with the provinces which differ.” The Archbishop of Canterbury was asked to appoint a commission to keep track of developments. Meanwhile, all were told of the need “to exercise sensitivity, patience and pastoral care towards all concerned.” But bishops facing intractable divisions were “encouraged to seek continuing dialogue with, and make pastoral provision for, those clergy and congregations whose opinions differ from those of the bishop, in order to maintain the unity of the diocese.” How separate pastoral provision would maintain unity was not explained.

Polygamy continued to present a problem. The bishops were less ready to restrict the access of polygamists to the sacraments than their predecessors a century earlier who had been willing to baptize only wives of polygamists and even those only “in some cases.” Now the bishops felt that “a polygamist who responds to the Gospel and wishes to join the Anglican Church may be baptized and confirmed with his believing wives and children” if they promise not to marry again so long as any of his wives were alive and if the local community were agreeable.

As the Anglican Communion became more truly a global community, the conference found itself asked to express opinions on the situations in Namibia, Lebanon, Palestine, Northern Ireland, military governments in Latin America, and Sharia Law in the Sudan. Naturally, also, as ecumenical relationships grew, the conference needed to express its opinion of relationships with Baptist, Orthodox, Roman, Pentecostal, Methodist, Reformed, United, and Lutheran Churches. Small wonder, then, that in spite of the request made by the previous conference for “dispassionate study” of homosexuality, there was no resolution on that subject in 1988.

1998

By 1998, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate was a fait accompli.

Several women had already been consecrated bishops and were present at the 1998 Lambeth Conference. Photo courtesy Louie Crew.

And small wonder, then, that the Lambeth Conference of 1998 found itself involved in prolonged and angry debate on the subject of sexuality. As to homosexuals, the bishops committed themselves “to listen to the experience of homosexual persons” and “assure them that they are loved by God and . . . full members of the Body of Christ.” Homosexual practice was rejected “as incompatible with Scripture," but “irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex” was condemned. Was it implied that there could be rational fear of homosexuals? A resolution referring to homosexuality as a “kind of sexual brokenness” and calling on bishops who ordain homosexual persons to repent was defeated. However, the bishops found that they could not “advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.”

But how was unity to be preserved where such divisions existed – or how might it be regained? The resolutions concerning respect for diocesan boundaries first adopted over a century earlier were reaffirmed. Bishops could not be a sign of unity while encouraging division. But the bishops seemed to be looking for stronger leadership and central authority. The conference noted that the primates had begun to meet separately and expressed the hope that the primates might “exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters.” The primates should meet more regularly, the bishops believed, but the Anglican Consultative Council was fine as it was and should not be asked to do more. The bishops seemed to defer to the primates, whose meetings “should carry moral authority calling for ready acceptance throughout the Communion.”

Summary

A summary of such a tumultuous history is all too likely to reflect the concerns of the moment and the viewpoint of the individual historian. This review has focused on two central issues: changing understandings of gender and sexuality, and the balance between diversity and unity. In recent years the emergence of new “instruments of unity” has raised new questions as to the relative significance of Lambeth, primates, and the Consultative Council with a critical underlying issue of the relative power of clergy and lay people. [Sidenote: We have also published Archbishop Peers' comments on the first meeting of the primates in 1978. Archbishop Daniel Coggan presided both at the Lambeth Conference and the 1978 primates meeting.] In regard to the concerns of the moment, the initial hesitancy of the bishops meeting at Lambeth to pronounce on anything at all rapidly shifted until, in the latter part of the 20th century, there were few things on which the conference did not have an opinion. The initial insistence on dispersed authority left a vacuum which the primates now seem determined to fill.

In regard to gender and sexuality, it is remarkable to observe the radical change in the positions the bishops have taken. In 1888, polygamists were not generally to be baptized; in 1988, they could be. In 1920, prophylactics were an “invitation to vice"; by 1958 they were “acceptable.” Until 1948, divorced persons were never to be remarried in church and those who remarried in civil ceremonies were not to be admitted to communion; by 1958 this frequently stated position had been replaced by the suggestion that a procedure for defining marital status was needed and the separate churches and provinces should work on it. No more has been heard of that, and the Anglican provinces have found ways not only to give communion to the divorced and remarried, but also to perform second and even third marriages in the church.

All this seems to raise again the central question of the Anglican ethos: Can a Christian community exist without a central authority and narrow definitions of doctrine? For centuries, royal authority and unquestioned cultural traditions enabled Anglicanism to survive and even thrive without such authority and definition. A world-wide community, existing in widely different cultures, no longer has these built-in supports. This might be an advantage if Anglicans were prepared to accept the variety of styles, theologies, liturgies, and polities that have resulted. One might imagine a community in which Christians were willing to accept strong episcopal authority in some places and strong lay leadership in others, narrow interpretation of the Bible in some societies and a more liberal interpretation in others. Why should African bishops have to dress like Victorian prelates and Japanese Christians be required to worship in Gothic buildings? Yet these cultural trappings have been accepted and the more significant differences that might reflect a truly encultured gospel have left us badly divided and on the verge of dissolution.

A careful review of our history, even one narrowly focused on some aspects of the Lambeth Conference, might lead us to be less sure of ourselves, more ready to listen, and more willing to leave a generous room for difference. If so many definitive statements of Lambeth have proved so subject to change, how sure should we be of our own current pronouncements? Might it be better to recognize that we might be wrong again and that we have yet to succeed in striking a proper balance between Biblical authority and cultural conditioning? Is it possible that we serve God’s church best when we do least to divide ourselves and do most to center our common life on a pattern of worship that draws us closer to the redeeming love of God?

These questions, it would seem, ought to be asked and should have been asked long ago.

Unity and Diversity in the Lambeth Conference

2008-01-30T21:29:00.000-06:00

Editor's Note: This is the 3rd part of Christopher Webber's essay on the history of the Lambeth Conference, continued from Part 2 here. Information about the author and resources appears in Part 1.

Part III: Coming to Grips with Unity and Diversity
by Christopher L. Webber
Marriage seen as primarily for procreation (1930)
Definition of Anglican Communion adopted (1948)
Growth in understanding of marriage (1958)
Consultative Council given broader membership and mission

This image of Lambeth Palace is an 1834 engraving from the Government Art Collection.

1930

When the bishops next gathered at Lambeth Palace, in 1930, their views on marriage remained those of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which was still the standard book in most parts of the Communion. That book stated, and the bishops re-affirmed, that “the primary purpose for which marriage exists is the procreation of children.” If parents were no longer enthusiastic about large families, the bishops called for “deliberate and thoughtful self-control . . . in intercourse.” At this conference, there was no condemnation of prophylactics, although the bishops still believed that limiting or avoiding parenthood should be effected primarily by abstinence. Now, however, they resolved that “where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence . . . other methods may be used” – though not for selfishness or mere convenience. What those other methods might be – when the use and sale of prophylactics was condemned – was left unclear, but at least the bishops seemed to recognize that the world was changing and the 1662 Prayer Book might not be the last word on the purposes of marriage. But there was strong opposition to this statement and, though it was approved by a 3-1 margin, 67 bishops voted against.

1948

This photograph during the Lambeth Conference (from July 3, 1948) shows (L to R) Bishop Hallwood of Hong Kong, Bishop Chang of Fukien or Fujian, Bishop Percy Jones of Sierra Leone, and Assistant Bishop R. W. Jones of Wales. Photo by Edward G. Malindine, Topical Press Agency.

World War II created another obstacle to meeting, and it was 1948 before the bishops assembled again. Inspired, perhaps, by the recently created United Nations, the 1948 conference was the first to attempt a definition of the Anglican Communion, stating that:

The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, which have the following characteristics in common:
they uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order as they are generally set forth in the Book of Common Prayer as authorised in their several Churches;

they are particular or national Churches, and, as such, promote within each of their territories a national expression of Christian faith, life and worship; and

they are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference.
At the first Lambeth Conference the question of creating a “Spiritual Court of Appeal" was raised, and the next conference suggested creating Voluntary Boards of Arbitration for Churches to which such an arrangement may be applicable, but nothing was done. The 1897 Conference called on the Archbishop of Canterbury to institute a “consultative body” to provide information and advice on request, but nothing seems to have been done as result of that call. The 1948 meeting finally defined a Consultative Council made up of bishops that would serve as the continuation committee of the conference and empowered it to deal with any matters referred to it by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but without legislative or executive powers. It seems unlikely that the Council met during the next ten years.

The Conference also affirmed “that the marriage of one whose former partner is still living may not be celebrated according to the rites of the Church, unless it has been established that there exists no marriage bond recognised by the Church.”

1958
By 1958, the Lambeth Conference was ready to look at marriage in a much more positive way and rooted its statements carefully in a positive theology. Marriage, they said, is a “vocation to holiness” and the idea of the family is “rooted in the Godhead.” “Consequently," the bishops agreed, “all problems of sex relations, the procreation of children, and the organisation of family life must be related, consciously and directly, to the creative, redemptive, and sanctifying power of God.” Family planning, they now agreed, is “a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God.” Instead of condemning contraception, they now believed that methods “mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience” were acceptable.

Concentrating as they were on the family, the bishops had little to say about women’s ministry outside the home except to say that “fuller use should be made of trained and qualified women, and that spheres of progressive responsibility and greater security should be planned for them.”

1968
But women were planning for themselves, and when the bishops met again, in 1968, the issue of women’s ordination was upon them and they were not ready. The Lambeth Conference expressed the opinion that the theological arguments for and against the ordination of women to the priesthood were “inconclusive,” and asked that the member churches study the matter carefully and seek advice from the Consultative Council before doing anything rash.
Photo at right: The Rev Dr Florence Li Tim-Oi, the first woman ordained to the priesthood in the Anglican Communion, was ordained on 25 January 1944 in the diocese of Hong Kong. Several other provinces were considering the ordination of women to the priesthood. The ordination of Li had a somewhat special character; the Diocese of Hong Kong said it was necessary under wartime conditions because there were no male candidates available. Li formally resigned her orders after the war, but resumed her ministry once the ordination of women was
recognized in Anglican Churches. Photo courtesy of Anglican Journal.

The bishops also took note of the recent papal statement condemning all methods of birth control except abstinence and the so-called “rhythm” method. The bishops at Lambeth agreed that the pope was in error on this subject. Of course, that meant the bishops themselves had been in error in 1920; but Anglican bishops can change their minds, and popes find it difficult to do that.

The bishops had always been reluctant to exercise leadership, but now they were willing to share it. The 1968 conference made radical changes in the Anglican Consultative Council, ordering it to include equal numbers of bishops, priests, and lay people from the five largest provinces and a priest or lay person as well as a bishop from the others. The Council could also select six other individuals to serve with them, of whom two must be women and two less than 28 years old. Now, for the first time, there would be an official body created to help build relationships between the member churches of the Communion. A Communion that had been held together simply by “mutual affection,” a Prayer Book tradition, and occasional meetings of bishops would now have a representative body meeting every two years. Communion would be expressed through a committee.

Editor's Note: Part 4 of Webber's essay continues here. In it, Webber considers the Lambeth Conferences from 1978 to the present. He focuses on the ordination of women as a central and divisive issue, the 1978 call for a study of homosexuality, the recognition of a state of "impaired communion" (dating from 1988), and the changing role of the primates.

Unity and Diversity in the Lambeth Conference

2008-01-29T19:59:00.000-06:00

Editor's Note: This is the 2nd part of Christopher Webber's essay, continued from here, about the history and future of the Lambeth Conference. Information about the author and resources appear in Part 1. Subsequent parts of his essay will be published over the next few days.

Part II: Broader Agendas
by Christopher L. Webber

Resolutions adopted on church and social issues
Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral adopted
Definitions of “full communion” and “essentials of faith” not adopted
Sexual issues raised: divorce and contraception condemned
Women to be admitted to all lay ministries

This mid-18th century painting by Samuel Scott shows Lambeth Palace from across the River Thames. The image appears here, courtesy of the Society of Genealogists.

1888

By the time a third Lambeth Conference was called for, the idea of such meetings had become a tradition. Therefore, the agenda in 1888 was much bolder than that of the first two conferences, ranging from socialism to polygamy and including "Authoritative standards of Doctrine and Worship” as well as "Mutual relations of Dioceses and Branches of the Anglican Communion.” Now, for the first time, resolutions were brought before the bishops and officially adopted. The bishops acted not only upon resolutions having to do with the life of the church, but also with the civil societies in which they functioned.

“Intemperance” had become an issue in the growing cities of England and America, and the bishops suggested that governments could help by restricting the number of places where alcohol could be drunk and the hours when such places were open. In the Anglican spirit of balance, they also condemned the fanaticism of many prohibitionists as sometimes “uncharitable and presumptuous.” Now that resolutions were being adopted officially, disagreement became visible. Resolutions on not admitting polygamists to baptism found from 20% to 40% of the bishops in opposition.

The life and unity of the church were a primary concern. The principles laid down ten years earlier, that each national church should respect the work of the others and that bishops should not enter the dioceses of others without permission, were said to have been “neglected,” and therefore were reaffirmed. Statements had been made in the past about not “defining any matter of doctrine,” but it was this conference that accepted the principles known now as “The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral” as a sufficient basis for Christian unity.

The conference also suggested that it would be useful for the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a small committee to draw up a simple statement of the teaching of the Anglican Communion on such subjects as the Catholic Faith, the Holy Scriptures, the Sacraments, the Forms of Prayer and Liturgy in use in the Anglican Churches, the relation of the Anglican Churches to the Church of Rome, the Churches of the East, and other Christian Churches and Societies, and the relation of the teaching of the Church of Christ to human knowledge. [Edward White Benson (depicted at left) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1883-1896.]

The conference agreed that the 39 Articles could well be amended in some particulars. Such a statement surely went well beyond the limits laid down for the first two conferences.

The conference also stated its opinion via reports received and included by reference in an encyclical letter on divorce and polygamy, among other things, in spite of the fact that there was considerable dissent on both matters, ranging from almost a quarter to well over a third of the bishops present. A long report on “purity” was adopted, calling on bishops and churches to work for a reformation of manners in relation to marriage and sexual matters. The bishops were concerned, they said, to “guard the innocent, to punish the guilty, to rescue the fallen, to suppress the haunts of vice, and to remove temptation from our thoroughfares.”

1897

In 1897, at the fourth Lambeth Conference, the bishops set out to define themselves by referring to letters of the earlier conferences which had been addressed to “Archbishops, Bishops Metropolitan, and other Bishops of the Holy Catholic Church, in full communion with the Church of England, one hundred in number, all exercising superintendence over Dioceses, or lawfully commissioned to exercise Episcopal functions . . . .” The issue of freedom and unity was addressed again in the statement that: “it is important that, so far as possible, the Church should be adapted to local circumstances, and the people brought to feel in all ways that no burdens in the way of foreign customs are laid upon them, and nothing is required of them but what is of the essence of the faith, and belongs to the due order of the Catholic Church.” The first of these statements, of course, left undefined what was meant by being “in full communion with the Church of England,” and the second left open “what is of the essence of the faith, and belongs to the due order of the Catholic Church.” Over a century later, these questions remain unanswered.

1908

The first conference of the 20th century, in 1908, found sexual matters claiming a central place on the agenda. The sanctity of marriage was seen to be threatened, and the bishops called on all “right-thinking and clean-living men and women” to defend the institution. Divorce, except for adultery and fornication, was not to be tolerated. The bishops declared that those who were divorced, even if “innocent,” could not marry again in the church. That resolution was carried by a vote of 87-84. They declared, though, that the “innocent party,” if re-married in a civil ceremony, might be re-admitted to communion. Birth control and abortion were condemned as well.

The 1908 Lambeth Conference agreed that the “ministry of the laity requires to be more widely recognised.” However, when they came to deal with the creation of a consultative council (called for by the previous conference), they resolved that such a council should be composed of 18 bishops chosen by the various provinces.

[Sidenote: The idea of a "consultative council" appears as early as the call at the 1868 gathering for a "Spiritual Court of Appeal," but no such "court" was created. In 1878, there was a suggestion of a "Voluntary Board of Arbitration," but again no such board seems to have been put in place. There was a call in 1897 for the Archbishop of Canterbury to create a "consultative council," but still there is no evidence that it was done. It seems there was some continuing interest in having a tool available to resolve disputes, not a body meeting at regular intervals; but no such group was created, and apparently no disputes were referred. All these proposals, of course, were to include only bishops and usually archbishops. The distinguished American Bishop of Olympia, Stephen Bayne, who became the first Anglican Executive Officer, created what he called an Anglican Consultative Council after the 1958 Lambeth Conference to work with him, but there is no indication that such a group was formally constituted as an authorized gathering until 1968.]

1920

The First World War made it necessary to postpone the next Lambeth Conference until 1920, and the war had begun to change settled views on a number of issues. Women, said the 1920 conference, should be admitted to all councils in the church in which lay men served. Here the conference was, indeed, staking out new territory. It took the Episcopal Church in the U.S. another fifty years to get itself in line with Lambeth and admit women as deputies to its General Convention.

On other matters of gender, however, the bishops at Lambeth were much more hesitant. The use of contraception was seen as a “grave danger - physical, moral and religious,” and the distribution of prophylactics was seen as “an invitation to vice.” The bishops believed that the use of such materials “threatens the race.” An echo of this viewpoint might be found in the response of the Church in Nigeria to the request of the 1998 Lambeth Conference that the Communion should listen to homosexuals as the Nigerian Church stated that such practice “threatens . . . the continuation of the race.” The bishops called on Christians everywhere to bring pressure on governments to end “the open or secret sale of contraceptives, and the continued existence of brothels.”

Part 3 of the essay will be published in the next day or two. In it, Webber considers the Lambeth Conferences of 1920 to 1968, characterized by a focus on the purposes and nature of marriage, the drive for a definition of the Anglican Communion, and an expansion of the membership and mission of the Consultative Council.

A Brief History of the Lambeth Conference: Unity and Diversity

2008-01-28T20:52:00.000-06:00

Unity and Diversity in the Lambeth Conference
by Christopher L. Webber

In this multi-part essay, Christopher Webber raises questions about the history and future of the Lambeth Conference: Where did Lambeth begin? What was the original purpose? What has it accomplished? His essay is not intended as a full history of Lambeth, but a summary of the origins and main developments that may be instructive today.

Due to its length, Father Webber's essay will be published in four parts over the next few days.

About the Author: The Rev. Christopher L. Webber is a graduate of Princeton and the General Theological Seminary where he earned two degrees and was awarded an honorary doctorate. He is the author of a number of books including The Vestry Handbook, Welcome to the Episcopal Church, Beyond Beowulf (the first-ever sequel to the first English saga), and the recently re-issued Re-Inventing Marriage, as well as a new supplement to the last title, called Same Sex Marriage and the Bible (available from his website). In a ministry of fifty years and counting, Fr. Webber has served parishes in inner city, suburban, rural, and overseas communities. He is currently serving as a supply priest in the Diocese of Connecticut.

Webber has written for The Episcopal Majority before. See Listening, Causes and Effects, A Certain Madness, The Conscience of a Conservative, and 1984 in the Episcopal Church.

In this essay, he includes several quotations from the Lambeth Conference archives, which use "English" rather than "American" spelling (e.g., "recognise" rather than "recognize"). The quotations appear here as they do in the originals.

About the Sources: Quotations here have been drawn from two websites and a book:

The Lambeth conferences of 1867, 1878, and 1888: with the official reports and resolutions, together with the sermons preached at the conferences
The Lambeth Conference Official Website - Archives
The Lambeth Conference 1958: The Encyclical Letter from the Bishops together with the Resolutions and Reports (New York: Seabury Press, 1958)

In addition, an archive of Lambeth resolutions is available at the Lambeth Conference archive.

Introduction

The Archbishop of Canterbury has sent out invitations to the bishops of the Anglican Communion to meet together at Lambeth this summer. It’s the fourteenth time that has happened, and the second time that there has been a serious question as to who might come. The first time a bare majority arrived: 76 out of 144. Many of those absent in 1868, including the Archbishop of York, had serious questions as to whether it was a good idea. Would they be creating a new center of authority? Would they be setting something in motion that might have unforeseen consequences?

In 2008 over 800 invitations have been sent, but it seems likely that a significant number will choose not to attend. Be that as it may, it seems like a good time to ask how we got here. Where did Lambeth begin? What was the original purpose? What has it accomplished? Are we over-hyping this thing? What follows is one attempt to sum it up. It is not intended as a full history of Lambeth, but a summary of the origins and main developments that may be instructive today.

Part I: The Beginning

No binding decisions to be made
Invitations to “all avowedly in communion”
No defining of doctrine
Respect for each other
No ministry in another jurisdiction without consent

It was the Bishop of Vermont who first suggested a conference of Anglican bishops; but it was an appeal from the Canadian bishops, who saw the political unity between their country and England beginning to dissolve, that brought about the first gathering. The Archbishop of Canterbury was nervous about it. Who knew what might happen if you brought together so many bishops, or what the consequences might be for the powers of individual bishops and archbishops?

"It should be distinctly understood," said Archbishop Longley, "that at this meeting no declaration of faith shall be made, and no decision come to which shall affect generally the interests of the Church, but that we shall meet together for brotherly counsel and encouragement.... I should refuse to convene any assembly which pretended to enact any canons, or affected to make any decisions binding on the Church.” Nonetheless, the Archbishop of York and several others from his province refused to come, and the Dean of Westminster refused to let the Abbey be used for the closing service, citing (among other reasons) "the presence of prelates not belonging to our Church." [Photo at right: Archbishop of Canterbury C.T. Longley taken in 1864 (from the Lambeth Conference website). Photo Credit: Lambeth Palace.]

Hesitantly, however, Archbishop Longley sent out invitations to “all who are avowedly in communion with our Church,” assuring them that “such a meeting would not be competent to make declarations or lay down definitions on points of doctrine. But united worship and common counsels would,” he hoped, "tend to maintain the unity of the faith.” 76 of the 144 bishops invited made their way to England in the autumn of 1868 and heard the Archbishop assure them that, “It has never been contemplated that we should assume the functions of a general synod of all the churches in full communion with the Church of England, and take upon ourselves to enact canons that should be binding upon those here represented. We merely propose to discuss matters of practical interest, and pronounce what we deem expedient in resolutions which may serve as safe guides to future action.”

In spite of all these protestations, when the bishops gathered, the Archbishop of Capetown asked for a change in the program so that he could have advice on dealing with a bishop in his province who was accused of heresy. In spite of “the strenuous protest of several bishops,” the conference appointed a committee to look into the matter and report back. The suggestion that a “Court of Appeal” be created to deal with such matters was also referred to a committee. When the committees reported back three months later, the Lambeth archives states, fewer than twenty bishops were still available to deal with them, so the reports were “received” and referred to a future conference for action.

When the Canadian bishops asked for a second conference, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Archibald Campbell Tait, was clear that such problems should be avoided. “There is no intention whatever,” he said, “on the part of anybody to gather together the Bishops of the Anglican Church for the sake of defining any matter of doctrine. Our doctrines are contained in our formularies, and our formularies are interpreted by the proper judicial authorities, and there is no intention whatever at any such gathering that questions of doctrine should be submitted for interpretation in any future Lambeth Conference any more than they were at the previous Lambeth Conference.” [Tait photograph (at left) courtesy http://www.nndb.com/people/390/000098096]

It was at that second conference, in 1878, that the Archbishop of York (William IX Thomson) preached a sermon that is still relevant in 2008. He drew on the story in Acts of the way in which Peter and Paul had argued in the early days of the church, and said, “It may be permitted us reverently to question whether the pulse of divine life in the Church has been hastened by one beat, by the violence of the zealous, who have thought well to be angry for the cause of God. Through strife, but not by strife, the Church has passed upon her way.” [The photo of Archbishop Thomson, at right, is from 1878.]

Also still relevant in 2008 were resolutions about unity within the Anglican Communion. It should be, the bishops said, “distinctly recognised and set forth, as of great importance for the maintenance of union among the Churches of our Communion” that “the duly certified action of every national or particular Church . . . should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members” and that “no bishop or other clergyman of any other Church should exercise his functions within [some other] diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof.”

Each member church should be free to govern its own life, but always remembering the other churches. That tension between freedom and unity was recognized early in relation to worship which, it was agreed, was central to the life of the Communion. While the bishops agreed that there should be great freedom for churches to revise the Book of Common Prayer, they also cautioned that too great variation would imperil the Communion’s unity.

The proposal made ten years before, for a “Court of Appeal,” was dealt with by a committee which announced that they were “not prepared to recommend that there should be any one central tribunal,” but rather that each province should deal with its own issues. Where a province was unable to do so, however, they agreed there might be a committee of five Archbishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, to review the case and offer an opinion. In keeping with the preliminary guidelines that ruled out doctrinal definitions, the report was not officially adopted, but rather incorporated in an encyclical letter approved by those in attendance.

Having weathered two conferences without committing themselves to much of anything, the bishops did, however, express “the hope that the problem, hitherto unsolved, of combining together for consultation representatives of Churches so differently situated and administered, may find, in the providential course of events, its own solution.” They therefore ventured to suggest that conferences might “be invested in future with somewhat larger liberty as to the initiation and selection of subjects for discussion.”

“Differently situated and administered” though the dioceses were from which the bishops came, it was still assumed that they had something in common besides Anglicanism: the Archbishop of Canterbury greeted them as coming “from all continents, and seas, and shores, where the English tongue is spoken.” Yet even then, such a greeting might have been questioned since the Bishops of Shanghai and Haiti were among those present, to say nothing of bishops from Wales and India. Overlooking that fact, the conference arranged for its encyclical letter to be translated only into Latin and Greek!

Note: Part 2 of Christopher Webber's essay will be published shortly. In it, Webber considers the Lambeth Conferences of 1888 to 1920.

The Episcopal Majority Meets Bishop Iker

2008-01-25T21:24:00.000-06:00

A week ago, the Reverend Thomas B. Woodward was in the Diocese of Fort Worth to present two programs to those wishing to remain in the Episcopal Church or at least to explore the questions. Father Jake carried an announcement, along with some background information and recommended sources for news about developments in the Diocese of Fort Worth. Here, Father Woodward provides a personal reflection about a meeting that occurred before the two public meetings.

Upon receiving an invitation to speak to Via Media people in Fort Worth and in Wichita Falls January 18-20, I wrote to Bishop Jack Iker to request a meeting with him to hear whatever concerns he might have about a dissident coming into his diocese to challenge his consistent message to his flock.

I could not have been happier with his response. He would see me shortly before lunch on the day I arrived in Fort Worth. In preparation for the visit, I bought a six pack of Santa Fe Brewery Pale Ale and a couple of pounds of Hatch roasted green chilies as a love offering from me, though in spirit from the Diocese of the Rio Grande. I also was careful to inform Bishop Iker of the sorts of things I would be talking about, referring him to some of what I have written for The Episcopal Majority, including the booklet The Undermining of the Episcopal Church.

We spent the first part of our meeting exchanging pleasantries, and I expressed my regret that his experience in the Episcopal Church was such that he felt he must leave it. Then I asked if he had any concerns about my speaking to his people. He said that he did not mind debate and arguing about matters of theology and the Bible – but that he did not like the demonizing that often accompanied it. He then mentioned several of the phrases that were most hurtful to him. I assured him that I had not used any of that language about him – but have stepped over the line more than once with my rhetoric, but always grateful when others mentioned that so I could apologize and, hopefully, learn something. He noted that he, too, has stepped over the line from time to time.

I assured Bishop Iker that I intended no disrespect for him during my time in his diocese. We then shared stories of blessing and of hurt in our life in the church. At the end of our time I asked for his blessing. We stood and he put his hands on my shoulder and prayed a most beautiful prayer, asking God’s blessing on my son in his recovery, asking God’s blessing on my time in Fort Worth and on my talks to his people.

I carry several things away with me from that meeting. First, what a joy it is when two people, so opposed on so many critical issues and concerns, can spend time relating to the best in the other with the best of ourselves. That is not the whole truth, but it is part of the truth. Second, I do not discount the hurt and sometimes the humiliation my friends and others in Fort Worth have suffered when +Jack has stepped over the line, nor the havoc his beliefs and attitudes about women’s ordination and our “Anglican agonies” have wreaked. Third, at this point the two of us are in the same church and attempting to follow the same Lord. Fourth, there is certainly pain when we encounter the worst in each other, but the pain is worse when we encounter their best, for it is then that the deep ache sets in as we wait for a time when our several wounds are healed and our fears are stopped in such a way that our best is our consistent selves. We are obviously not there yet.

The talks did go well, both in Fort Worth and in Wichita Falls. They were followed by time with the Steering Committee of Via Media Dallas. While I had requested time with Bishop Stanton for an earlier trip that had to be cancelled, there was no time for such a visit this time. I did, though, revel in my time with several of my heroes and heroines in the church, including Dixie Hutchinson, Katie Sherrod and Gayland Pool.

I will have more to say about the talks themselves. One thing is probably worth mentioning here. I had done some thinking about what the faithful could do to sustain themselves, and the thought about singing “We Shall Overcome” during communion at diocesan gatherings had stuck in my mind. However, reflecting upon all that is at stake in our struggles to remain in the fullness of the Episcopal Church, an even more appropriate song came to mind: “They Can’t Take That Away from Me.”

Tom Woodward
Santa Fe, NM

Postscript: Fort Worth Via Media posted a synopsis by Susan Reeves of Father Woodward's January 19 presentation , and Katie Sherrod provided a reflection after his presentations.

Civil Discourse (Part 4)

2008-01-22T01:31:00.000-06:00

by the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)

Editor's Note: This is the last installment of the essay posted here, an excerpt from Bishop Robinson's In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, scheduled for publication in April 2008 from Church Publishing. We are grateful to CPI for giving us permission to publish this chapter from Bishop Robinson's forthcoming book.

But how do we now move forward? And what is the rightful role of religion in this public discourse? Unlike some issues we’ve faced in the past, the movement forward in the civil realm is tied intimately to moving forward in the religious realm. There is perhaps no other prejudice, ensconced in the laws of the land, that’s so based on sacred scripture, so entwined with our theological understanding of the nature of humankind and the sexuality which proves to be both its blessing and its curse. No other attitude in the body politic is so tied to an attitude stemming from a particular Judaeo-Christian teaching. Change in no other social attitude in the secular culture is so tied to change in religious belief.

So it will take religious people and religious voices to undo the harm done by religious institutions. While there’s been a decline in the number of people who experience and express their spirituality in and through formal religious institutions, religion is still a powerful force within the culture, and it generally works against progress in the inclusion and full civil rights for gay and lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. It’s time that progressive Christians rescue the Bible from the Religious Right, which has held it hostage and claimed it as its own private territory for far too long. It’s time that Christians and Jews actually read the holy scripture they claim as the basis of their beliefs, instead of simply believing what others tell them it says. It’s time we use reputable scholarship, sound reason, and thoughtful exploration to understand what the words of scripture meant to the person who authored them and what they meant to the people for whom they were written, before deciding whether or not those words are binding on people outside that ancient cultural context. It’s time that progressive religious people stop being ashamed of their faith and afraid to be identified with the Religious Right, and start preaching the Good News of the liberating Christ to all God’s children.

But what is a good, positive and appropriate way to voice one’s religious convictions in public discourse? I think it involves a simple shift in focus from the public to the private in these expressions. I’m free to express my own personal and religious reasons for coming to the opinions I express, but the minute I start arguing that you must come to those same opinions because my religious truth must be your truth too, then I violate the divide between private and public. Most alarming of all is when “my” truth becomes “the” truth, applicable to everyone. James Dobson or Pat Robertson are perfectly free to tell me about the religious beliefs that compel them to oppose the acceptance of gay people, but when they claim that their beliefs are right and true for all humankind, they move from democracy to theocracy.

Similarly, if I argue for the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people in society, I must do so on the merits of my argument, not on a claim that my understanding of God is right and true and compels everyone. I must make my arguments based on decency, compassion, democratic principles, and a notion of the common good – not on any reading of any sacred text to which I might subscribe.

We need to separate, as best we can, the civil realm from the religious, especially in the struggle for equal civil marriage rights for all citizens. Clergy have long acted as agents of the State in the solemnization of marriages. Because a priest or rabbi or minister acts on behalf of the State in signing the marriage license and attesting to the proper enactment of the marriage, we’ve lost the distinction between what the State does and what the religious institution does. In fact, the State affects the marriage, while the Church pronounces its blessing on it. In France, everyone is married at the mayor’s office; those who are religious reconvene at the church for the religious blessing. Those who don’t desire such a blessing are still fully married according to the laws of the State. In such an arrangement, it’s clear where the State’s action ends and the Church’s action begins.

We need to make a clear distinction between civil rights and religious rites. It may take many years for religious institutions to add their blessing to same-sex marriages, and no church or synagogue should be forced to do so, but that should not slow down progress toward the full civil right to marriage as executed by the State for the benefit and stability of the society. Because in New Hampshire civil unions is now legal, my partner of twenty years and I have made plans to enter into such a union in June 2008. On the steps of the State capitol, our legal, civil union will be solemnized by our female Jewish lawyer. That’s the civil part, accountable to the State. Then we will walk across the street to St. Paul’s Church for prayers of thanksgiving and blessing for our union—that is the purview of the Church. Such a separation of the roles of Church and State might be helpful in many ways. Perhaps it’s a separation that ought to be made for all couples, heterosexual and homosexual alike.

In the end, I know everything will turn out right. Christians are hopeful by nature – not because we have any special confidence in the desire of human beings to do the right thing, but because of our confidence in God to keep prodding, inspiring, and calling us until we do it. The world may be ready for change, but our faith tells us that change is anything but random. God is always working for the coming of the kind of Kingdom in which all are respected, all are valued, all are included. I believe the Holy Spirit is working within the Church and within the culture to bring that full inclusion about, and in the end, God will not be foiled. In the meantime, we need to work with all our might, intellect, dollars—and all our hearts--to bring that new world into existence.

Note: This text appears in In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, by Gene Robinson, © 2008 Church Publishing Incorporated. Used by permission of the publisher. Bishop Robinson’s book will be available in April 2008. You may click here to place an order from Church Publishing.

Pittsburgh Episcopalians Speak

2008-01-16T20:35:00.000-06:00

We received this press release today from Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh in response to the news that the Title IV Review Committee found that Bishop Robert Duncan has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church and that Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has invited him to provide evidence that he considers himself fully subject to the Episcopal Church. Our coverage of that story is here.

Progressive Episcopalians Of Pittsburgh
6393 Penn Avenue, PMB 207
Pittsburgh, PA 15206-4010

Contact:
Joan R. Gundersen, President
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh
Telephone: +1 (412) 799-0440
E-mail: jrgunder@hotmail.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Progressive Episcopalians See Review Committee Action
As Providing Reconciliation Opportunity

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — January 16, 2008 — Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) sees reason for hope in the statement issued yesterday by The Episcopal Church’s Title IV Review Committee certifying that, in its view, Bishop of Pittsburgh Robert Duncan has abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church. PEP believes that the canonical procedures set in motion by this decision will clarify issues of polity that have become confused in this diocese.

Under Canon IV.9, the House of Bishops will, at its fall meeting or at a special meeting called earlier, give or withhold its consent for Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to depose Bishop Duncan.

“The action of the Review Committee gives all of us in Pittsburgh serious cause to reflect,” said Dr. Joan Gundersen, President of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh. “This can be an opportunity for all of us to consider how we can change course and restore relations with one another and with The Episcopal Church.”

The Rev. Diane Shepard, First Vice President of PEP, commented, “We understand that Bishop Duncan must follow his conscience regarding the kind of church he believes is faithful to the Gospel. Whether he can resume his role in The Episcopal Church or must relinquish it, we pray that he finds a way to serve Christ’s Church in peace and good conscience.”

PEP is committed to a diocese that finds its strength in diverse understandings of Christian faith and, as our Baptismal Covenant requires, respects the dignity of every human being, ideas that exemplify The Episcopal Church at its best. “Especially now, in this time of crisis, PEP encourages all Episcopalians in the diocese to engage in dialogue about how we can move forward together. Some people may choose to leave The Episcopal Church. We hope their number will be few,” declared president Gundersen.

Contact:
Joan R. Gundersen, President
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh
Telephone: +1 (412) 799-0440
E-mail: jrgunder@hotmail.com

On the Web:
This document:
http://progressiveepiscopalians.org/html/2008-01-16opportunity.html

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh:
http://progressiveepiscopalians.org/

The Episcopal Church:
http://episcopalchurch.org/

Diocese of Pittsburgh:
http://www.pgh.anglican.org/

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh is an organization of clergy and laypeople committed to the unity and diversity of The Episcopal Church, and of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. It is a member of the Via Media USA alliance.

Action on Bishop Duncan

2008-01-16T19:50:00.000-06:00

ENS yesterday released a story that the Title IV Review Committee has agreed that Pittsburgh bishop Robert Duncan has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori informed Duncan on January 15 of the certification and sent him a copy. Her letter told Duncan that she sought the canonically required permission from the House's three senior bishops with jurisdiction to inhibit him, based on the certification, from the performance of any episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts. "On 11 January 2008 they informed me that such consents would not be given at this time by all three bishops," Jefferts Schori wrote.

The three senior bishops whose consent would have been required for inhibition are Leo Frade of Southeast Florida, Peter Lee of Virginia, and Don Wimberly of Texas.

As Episcopal Café observes, this is similar to the charge against Bishop Schofield; but without the senior bishops' consents, Bishop Duncan cannot be inhibited. The House of Bishops will act on the abandonment charge at their next regular or special meeting after the 60 days for recanting has elapsed as per the time limits in Title IV Canon 9.2. If a majority of bishops eligible to vote then agree with the charge, the Presiding Bishop deposes him.

The full report of the Title IV Review Committee is available here. Members of that committee are Upper South Carolina Bishop Dorsey Henderson (committee chair), Bishop Suffragan David C. Jones of Virginia, Bishop C. Wallis Ohl Jr. of Northwest Texas, Bishop Suffragan Bavi E. Rivera of Olympia, Bishop James Waggoner of Spokane, the Rev. Carolyn Kuhr of Montana, the Very Rev. Scott Kirby of Eau Claire, J.P. Causey Jr. of Virginia, and Deborah J. Stokes of Southern Ohio.

In her letter to Bishop Duncan, the Presiding Bishop acknowledged that action on his inhibition cannot be taken until 60 days have elapsed. She wrote in her letter to him: "I would, however, welcome a statement by you within the next two months providing evidence that you once more consider yourself fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church."

In a statement posted on the Diocese of Pittsburgh site, Bishop Duncan offered a brief response to the news, saying, “Few bishops have been more loyal to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church. I have not abandoned the Communion of this Church. I will continue to serve and minister as the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh."

Father Jake has dug a bit more deeply into the canons and inhibition documents. Go over there and read more. Mark Harris also offers analysis at Preludium. Count on Mark to be careful and generous.

The photo at right is of Bishops Duncan and Iker at the August 2007 consecration in Nairobi of bishops to serve in the United States.

A story posted today at The Living Church reveals that Fort Worth bishop Iker also received a letter from the Presiding Bishop on January 15.

Bishop Jack Leo Iker of Fort Worth informed The Living Church on Jan. 15 that he has received a second letter from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori threatening him with new disciplinary action.

“Unlike her November letter, it did not imply a charge of ‘abandonment of the communion of this church’, but it said that I would be liable for charges of violation of my ordination vows if I continue ‘any encouragement of such a belief’ (i.e. that parishes and dioceses can leave The Episcopal Church),” Bishop Iker said.

It only stands to reason that bishops Duncan and Iker are receiving similar attention by the Title IV Review Committee.

Civil Discourse (Part 3)

2008-01-14T01:14:00.000-06:00

by the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)

Editor's Note: This is a continuation of the essay posted here, an excerpt from Bishop Robinson's In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, scheduled for publication in April 2008 from Church Publishing. We are grateful to CPI for giving us permission to publish this chapter from Bishop Robinson's forthcoming book.

These things may seem hopelessly off-topic for issues related to gay and lesbian people, but they’re all deeply related. We’re talking about how we change our minds – as a culture, a nation, and a Church – about something we’ve been very sure about for thousands of years. To some, it seems like the height of madness and a willy-nilly discarding of ancient truths. To some, it seems as if nothing is certain anymore, or that the Church doesn’t know what it believes. But to others, it seems like the kind of change that Jesus promised would be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Only through such a gentle and comforting understanding of the continuing work of God will people find the courage to change their minds about this issue.

But why is the resistance to change on this issue so vehement, so vitriolic, so deep? Why would two people wanting to pledge their love and fidelity to one another for their mutual benefit and the benefit of society be seen as a problem? Why wouldn’t conservatives applaud the pledge of faithful monogamy in gay marriage for the people they’ve always accused of being promiscuous and irresponsible? Why wouldn’t conservative Christians want to see gay people stop entering usually-disastrous heterosexual marriages just to be happy and accepted? Why can conservatives use gay marriage as an effective wedge issue in political campaigns?

Or, in the Church, why would my election as bishop of a fairly conservative, rural and small-town diocese in New England turn into a worldwide controversy? How could my election spawn thousands of hateful letters and emails? Why would I, a Christian elected by the clergy and people of a diocese to be their bishop, receive death threats from other religious people and have to wear a bulletproof vest for my consecration? Why would people around the world, from the bush of Kenya to the remotest of Pacific islands, debate my fitness for this calling, based not on my skills, experience, and faithfulness, but on my sexual orientation? Why would some leaders in the Anglican Communion consider it dangerous to meet with me, talk with me, or even be seen with me?

First, we’ve never been very comfortable talking about sex. The Puritans in American culture didn’t help, nor did the Victorian Age in Britain, with its often duplicitous sensibilities. The realities of our sexual lives are perhaps too frightening to bring to the light of day.

Yet many of the moral issues that face us today involve sexuality. Abortion, fertility therapies, alternative methods of reproduction, the role of men and women, and the ending of half of all marriages in divorce that signals a crisis for the contemporary family—all these involve sexuality. We need to talk about these things, yet we have little experience doing so. Parents still falter over what to tell their children about sex—and when. Perhaps our near-obsession with homosexuality is a group denial mechanism for heterosexuals not to talk about their own sexual issues. If we can talk about them, then we don’t have to talk about us. If we can focus on their problems, we don’t have to talk about our own.

Most people resist seeing the treatment of homosexuals as “their” problem. Gay and lesbian people have known for a long time that the problem isn’t gay and lesbian people’s sexuality, but their ill treatment by a hostile society.

The problem, though, isn’t exactly “homophobia.” That surely exists, but it’s always a conversation stopper. Some claim they’re not afraid of homosexuals so they’re “not guilty” of homophobia. But the further sin our society is guilty of is “heterosexism.”

Everyone knows what an “ism” is: a set of prejudices and values and judgments backed up with the power to enforce those prejudices in society. Racism isn’t just fear and loathing of non-white people; it’s the systemic network of laws, customs, and beliefs that perpetuate prejudicial treatment of people of color. I benefit every day from being white in this culture. I don’t have to hate anyone, or call anyone a hateful name, or do any harm to a person of color to benefit from a racist society. I just have to sit back and reap the rewards of a system set up to benefit me. I can even be tolerant, open-minded, and multi-culturally sensitive. But as long as I’m not working to dismantle the system, I am racist.

Similarly, sexism isn’t just the denigration and devaluation of women; it’s the myriad ways the system is set up to benefit men over women. It takes no hateful behavior on my part to reap the rewards given to men at the expense of women. But to choose not to work for the full equality of women in this culture is to be sexist.

So the sin we’re fighting now, within the secular sphere, is the sin of heterosexism. More and more people are feeling kindly toward gay and lesbian people, but that will never be enough. More important is the dismantling of the system that rewards heterosexuals at the expense of homosexuals. That’s why equal marriage rights are so important. That’s why “don’t ask, don’t tell” is such a failure and such a painful thing for gay and lesbian people, even those who have no desire to serve in the military. These are ever-present reminders that our identities, our lives, and our relationships are second class – because the very system of laws that govern us discriminates against us and denigrates our lives. Over one thousand rights are automatically granted to a couple who marries. Yet the gay couple who has been faithfully together for thirty years is denied those very same rights.

At their root, heterosexism and homophobia are expressions of misogyny, the hatred of women. If you doubt the currency of this misogynistic attitude, go to the video store and rent a movie with a football storyline. At some point, in so many of these films, when the team is about to lose the big game and the players need to be pumped up, the coach will belittle, anger, and presumably empower the team by calling them a bunch of girls. Why does that work? Because no insult could be worse!

But heterosexism, like sexism, is beginning to erode in society and in the church. For a very long time, most of the decisions affecting the world have been made by white, heterosexual, educated, Western men. Ever so gradually, though, people of color were invited to the conversation; then women; and now gay and lesbian people. And things are never the same when the oppressed claim—and receive— their voice. It’s no wonder the resistance is so fierce, given that we’re changing a system that’s been in place almost forever.

Sneak Preview of Part 4:

But how do we now move forward? And what is the rightful role of religion in this public discourse? Unlike some issues we’ve faced in the past, the movement forward in the civil realm is tied intimately to moving forward in the religious realm. There is perhaps no other prejudice, ensconced in the laws of the land, that’s so based on sacred scripture, so entwined with our theological understanding of the nature of humankind and the sexuality which proves to be both its blessing and its curse. No other attitude in the body politic is so tied to an attitude stemming from a particular Judaeo-Christian teaching. Change in no other social attitude in the secular culture is so tied to change in religious belief.

Note: This text appears in In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, by Gene Robinson, © 2008 Church Publishing Incorporated. Used by permission of the publisher. Bishop Robinson’s book will be available in April 2008. You may click here to place an order from Church Publishing.

The final section of Bishop Robinson's "Civil Discourse" appears here.

The Strange Saga of San Joaquin

2008-01-14T01:07:00.000-06:00

Your editor has been a bit overwhelmed this weekend with Real Life while life in the blogosphere has continued. I will not attempt here to recap all the news related to the strange situation of former Episcopal bishop Schofield. We posted the inhibition story here. Now it appears that Schofield cannot seem to figure out whether he parks his mitre in California or South America. Rather than trying to recap events, I refer you to these sites and postings that will let you catch up.

Father Jake covered the inhibition here. As he reported, the morning after the inhibition, San Joaquin issued a response, declaring that Schofield is a member of both the Episcopal Church and the Province of the Southern Cone. Shortly thereafter, Presiding Bishop Venables (of the Southern Cone) and Fort Worth bishop Iker responded in a rather contrary way, declaring that TEC has no power over Schofield, since he's no longer a bishop in the Episcopal Church. Soon thereafter, Schofield's canon issued a "correction." Father Jake covers it all, including a detailed fisking of San Joaquin's initial response, along with reports of the San Joaquin "correction" and the observation that all the conservatives deleted their initial postings. Father Jake puts it in context here. Since all the original sources of San Joaquin's initial response have deleted it, Father Jake has posted it here for review.

Thinking Anglicans seems to have been the first to reveal that the initial San Joaquin statement, quickly deleted from conservative blogsites, was written by this public relations firm, which specializes in "crisis management."

As usual, Mark Harris provided a thoughtful analysis of San Joaquin's response.

Also as usual, Episcopal Café does a fine job of coverage. At "Is He or Isn't He," they provide a good summary and ask pointed questions. At the conclusion of that story, they provide a timeline of the permutating responses from San Joaquin.

After the inhibition, EpiScope provided a round-up of news reports, as did Thinking Anglicans provided Thinking Anglicans.

Breaking News from San Joaquin

2008-01-11T19:20:00.000-06:00

We have recently posted news from the Diocese of San Joaquin, whose convention voted to leave the Episcopal Church and join the South American Province of the Southern Cone. This evening, Episcopal News Service has posted two significant stories.

Presiding Bishop inhibits San Joaquin bishop
Action comes after Review Committee says Schofield has abandoned the Episcopal Church
By Mary Frances Schjonberg

[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on January 11 inhibited Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield.

In the text of the inhibition, Jefferts Schori wrote: "I hereby inhibit the said Bishop Schofield and order that from and after 5:00 p.m. PST, Friday, January 11, 2008, he cease from exercising the gifts of ordination in the ordained ministry of this Church; and pursuant to Canon IV.15, I order him from and after that time to cease all 'episcopal, ministerial, and canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of San Joaquin,' until this Inhibition is terminated pursuant to Canon IV.9(2) or superseded by decision of the House of Bishops."

Jefferts Schori acted after the Title IV Review Committee certified that Schofield had abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.

The full story is at Episcopal Life Online. As previous reports (including this one) have explained, an inhibition is followed by a two-month period during which the bishop will be allowed to recant. What happens if an inhibited bishop fails to recant? An earlier ENS story provides the answer:

If [an inhibited bishop] failed to do so, the matter would go to the full House of Bishops. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the House of Bishops.
If the House concurred, the Presiding Bishop could depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Members of congregations in the diocese remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.
An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.
A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

Meanwhile, the remaining Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin are going about their work, according to this story at Episcopal Life.

San Joaquin's remaining Episcopalians to gather for reconciliation, inclusion, celebration
By Pat McCaughan

[Episcopal News Service] A January 26 gathering of continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin and national church leaders, "Moving Forward, Welcoming All," will focus on reconciliation, inclusion, and celebration, event organizers said.

"We are just so encouraged; we're looking forward to welcoming more people," said Cindy Smith, president of Remain Episcopal, a group which opposed the December vote to realign the Central California Valley diocese with the Argentina-based Province of the Southern Cone, which has about 22,000 members and encompasses the South American nations of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.

Former Bishop John-David Schofield had urged the realignment, approved by 42 of the diocese's 47 congregations. Clergy approved the split 70-12 and laity voted 103-10 for realignment.

But in recent weeks, momentum and enthusiasm have spiked as additional people and some congregations "have thought about what has happened, what it means to not be part of the Episcopal Church anymore" and sought out continuing communities of faith, said Smith.

Episcopal Life Online has the full story.

Father Jake has been carrying the most comprehensive coverage of news from the Diocese of San Joaquin. At his site, go to the sidebar on the right and scroll down to the subsection, "The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin." Click on any of the links to access those discussions.

What can Episcopalians do in the light of all this?

With all that is occurring within San Joaquin, this much is clear: It's going to take a great deal to support the Episcopal Church in this region. The organization taking the lead in working with the leadership of the Episcopal Church is Remain Episcopal.

First and foremost, pray for the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Episcopalians there will need comfort, strength, discernment, and wisdom.

Second, send a tangible note of support via their website, as The Episcopal Majority – like many other individuals and organizations – have done.

Finally, the tasks facing the diocese will require considerable financial support. You can make contributions (via their 501(c)(3) organization) to Remain Episcopal at:

Remain Episcopal
2067 W. Alluvial
Fresno, CA 93711

Saturday morning update:

Thinking Anglicans is carrying news reports about this development.

According to Kendall Harmon (of TitusOneNine), the "Diocese of San Joaquin" has issued the statement:

The Episcopal Church’s assertion that Bishop Schofield has abandoned the communion of this Church is an admission that TEC rejects the historical Anglican faith which is why The Diocese of San Joaquin appealed to the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of South America for emergency and temporary protection. The majority of the other provinces of the Anglican Communion hold to the traditional faith. It is the primary duty of bishops to guard the faith and Bp Schofield has been continually discriminated against for having done so while Bishops and Archbishops around the world have affirmed not only his stance but the move to the Southern Cone. Bishop Schofield is currently a member of both the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone, a position not prohibited by either house. Governing documents of TEC do not prohibit relationships between different members of the Anglican Communion, rather they encourage it. TEC’s action demonstrates that there is an enormous difference between their church and most of the Anglican Communion Again, this action is a demonstrationthat TEC is walking apart from the faith and its expression of morality held by the rest of the Anglican Communion..

The Episcopal Church’s own identity is dependent upon its relationship with the whole Anglican Communion. TEC should consider whether it is imperiling that relationship by taking such punitive actions.

How is it that over 60 million Anglicans world wide can be wrong while a few hundred thousand in the American Church can claim to be right?

The source of that statement is not specified (i.e., whether it was issued by a communications officer or Schofied, voted upon by a diocesan group, etc.). We expect clarification will be offered.

Civil Discourse (Part 2)

2008-01-10T20:31:00.000-06:00

by the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)

Editor's Note: This is a continuation of the essay posted here, an excerpt from Bishop Robinson's In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, scheduled for publication in April 2008 from Church Publishing. We are grateful to CPI for giving us permission to publish this chapter from Bishop Robinson's forthcoming book.

There’s not a single nation, culture, or religion that isn’t dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Even those religions that are absolutely clear and unswerving in their condemnation of homosexuality are being challenged by their gay and lesbian members to take another look at that condemnation. Some estimate, for example, that between 40 and 60 percent of Roman Catholic priests are gay. [Stuart, Elizabeth, Chosen : Gay Catholic Priests Tell Their Stories] The Southern Baptist Convention, to which local autonomy is almost sacred, has expelled congregations for offering blessings to same-sex couples or for calling a gay minister. Conservative Jews have admitted gay and lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered rabbinical students to their seminaries. Evangelical Christians have been rocked by revelations that some of their leaders have had secret affairs with people of the same sex.

Who’d have thought we’d ever see legal civil unions and even marriage for gay and lesbian couples? Who’d have thought that a country like South Africa would write gay and lesbian civil rights explicitly into its constitution, or that a Roman Catholic country like Spain would permit marriage between same-sex couples? Many Anglicans from around the world continue to call on me to resign my position as bishop, naively believing that if I went away, this issue would go away, and the Church would return to its quiet, peaceful existence – though the Church has never, in its 2000-year history, enjoyed a time free of conflict.

Why does religion play such an important role in this debate? Religion, of course, has always played a role in the public discourse of nations. But why the particularly virulent and passionate stances on this issue? And why can’t we simply ignore the religious argument and have a thoroughly secular debate?

Religion makes its beliefs known on a variety of issues – from abortion to stem cell research, from environmental stewardship to capital punishment. But most faith communities have people on both sides of these issues within their ranks – at least in part because you can’t find too many definite proclamations in scripture either for or against them. You can read Genesis 1:28, for instance (“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth”), and argue for good environmental stewardship. Or, using the same verse but different understandings of key words, you can argue for total exploitation of the environment. You can defend abortion on the basis of our God-given personal conscience or oppose it on the basis of the sanctity of life.

But the Bible doesn’t seem to mince any words about homosexuality. Leviticus, for instance, seems specifically to condemn male homosexuality: “You [men] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (18:22) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death.” (20:13) (There are no same-sex proscriptions for women in these texts, by the way.) The fact that the Bible seems specifically to name homosexuality as repugnant to God and deserving of capital punishment makes religion particularly relevant to our understanding of this issue, in ways that are more compelling than with other hot-button issues.

The fact is, at least in Western culture, God’s condemnation of homosexuality is assumed. It’s in the air we breathe. And because of that, religious belief is relevant in our discourse about civil rights for gay and lesbian people.

So, what does the Bible really say about homosexuality? I believe our traditional understanding of the biblical—hence God’s—attitude toward homosexuals is flawed and needs to be reinterpreted.

First, the philosophical and psychological construct of sexual orientation is a modern phenomenon. It was only at the very end of the nineteenth century that the notion was first posed that there might be a certain minority of people who are naturally oriented – affectionally and sexually – toward members of the same gender. In biblical times, and until the last hundred or so years, it’s been assumed that everyone is heterosexual, which meant that anyone acting in a homosexual manner was acting “against their nature.” In other words, homosexuals were “heterosexuals behaving badly.” Indeed, many recent evangelical translations of the Bible use the word “homosexual” to translate certain Greek and Hebrew words that may not be related to homosexuality per se, but to sexual exploitation and abuse of underage boys by older men, common in Roman and Greek culture, and to temple prostitution in neighboring heathen cultures. Yet reading one of these translations using the word “homosexual,” you’d assume that the ancient Hebrew and Christian communities were talking about precisely the same thing we’re talking about today. That’s not the case. You can’t take a twentieth-century word, insert it back into an ancient text, and proclaim that it means something totally unknown to the authors of that text.

Second, our understanding of the word “abomination” is different from its original use. According to the Holiness Code in the Book of Leviticus, many things were an “abomination” to God, including the eating of pork. Eating pork wasn’t innately wrong, but abstaining from it was one of the ways Jews were reminded that they were a separate, chosen people. Observing the dietary laws reminded them of this special relationship to God. Jews were also forbidden to eat shellfish, plant two kinds of seed in the same field, or wear two kinds of cloth simultaneously. Tattoos were prohibited; those who cursed their parents were to be put to death. Yet you don’t hear leaders from the Religious Right denouncing these “abominations.”

Third, the ancient Hebrews’ understanding of the science of reproduction and sexual activity was different than ours today. Male sperm was thought to contain all of nascent life—the only contribution made by women in the reproductive process was providing a place for the fetus to incubate. So any “spilling” of male seed was considered tantamount to murder. Ancient Hebrews were a small minority, living in a hostile, heathen environment, struggling to reproduce, build up their population, and survive, so any waste of male sperm was antithetical to that survival and synonymous with not only murder, but a betrayal of the national interest. In the same way, masturbation and even coitus interruptus in heterosexual copulation (the so-called “sin of Onan”) were prohibited because they wasted male seed and squandered the possibility of new human life. Today, we understand that both sexes contribute to the process of human reproduction, and our day’s problem is over- rather than under-population. We believe sexuality has purposes far beyond reproduction. Yet these few verses of scripture are quoted as if nothing has changed in our understanding since biblical times. Note, of course, that all the other references to the “spilling of seed” have been reinterpreted to be acceptable, but not the proscription against same-sex behavior.

Recent studies have yielded rich information about the culture in which these texts were written and heard. Much of the biblical scholarship of the past fifty years has focused on the societies and cultures that formed the settings for these scriptural texts, both those of the ancient Hebrews and the early Christians, as well as the competing and often hostile cultures surrounding them. We’ve come to know the deeper meaning of these sacred texts as we’ve become more knowledgeable about the cultural situations to which they were responses. Those who argue for a literalist reading of scripture often act as if none of this scholarship has occurred or makes any difference to a twenty-first century understanding.

And though I believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, that doesn’t mean they are literally the “words” of God, virtually dictated by God through human media. And let’s not forget that the real “Word” of God is Jesus himself. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” begins the Gospel of John. Christians believe it isn’t the Bible but the Jesus “event” – his life, death and resurrection – that offers the perfect revelation of God. The Bible is the best and most trustworthy witness to that event, but it neither replaces Jesus as the Word nor takes precedence over Christ’s continuing action in the world through the Holy Spirit. To elevate the words of scripture to a place higher than the revealed Word of God in Jesus Christ is an act of idolatry.

Sneak Preview to Part 3:

These things may seem hopelessly off-topic for issues related to gay and lesbian people, but they’re all deeply related. We’re talking about how we change our minds – as a culture, a nation, and a Church – about something we’ve been very sure about for thousands of years. To some, it seems like the height of madness and a willy-nilly discarding of ancient truths. To some, it seems as if nothing is certain anymore, or that the Church doesn’t know what it believes. But to others, it seems like the kind of change that Jesus promised would be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Only through such a gentle and comforting understanding of the continuing work of God will people find the courage to change their minds about this issue.

Note: This text appears in In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, by Gene Robinson, © 2008 Church Publishing Incorporated. Used by permission of the publisher. Bishop Robinson’s book will be available in April 2008. You may click here to place an order from Church Publishing.

Addendum (01/14/08): Click here to proceed to Part 3 of Bishop Robinson's essay.

Civil Discourse (Part 1)

2008-01-08T17:48:00.000-06:00

by the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)

Editor's Note: As we noted a few days ago, Bishop Gene Robinson gave an impressive lecture at NOVA University. We later learned that his lecture was part of In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, a book scheduled for publication in April 2008 from Church Publishing. You can place advance orders here. We are grateful to CPI for giving us permission to publish this chapter from Bishop Robinson's forthcoming book; we will publish it in sections over the coming days, as a gift to our readers and the wider church.

In this chapter from his forthcoming book, Bishop Robinson talks about the Scriptures, how the Holy Spirit has guided Christians in the past two millennia, the civil rights of gay and lesbian Christians, and the need for mainstream Christians to "take back the Bible" from the extremists.

Civil Discourse

Sometimes—who knows why—the world just seems to be ready for a movement or a cause. In our day, it’s full civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. But swirling around this movement is a galaxy of questions. Why are we here in this particular moment, struggling with this particular issue? Why does religion play a central role in this debate—and is that role appropriate in public discourse? Who are the loudest, strongest voices coming from the religious community, and why are they so strident, unrelenting, and passionate? What does the Bible really say about homosexuality, what does it not say, and why does it matter in a secular state? What is the rightful role of religion in public discourse? How does this debate about the civil rights of LGBT people relate to the other “isms” of our culture, and what is the broader context for discussion of human rights for all citizens? How do we move forward in the never-ending search for the common good?

What the answers are depends on who you are. Look at me. Let’s just note for the record that I am male. I will never know what it’s like to live my life as a female, and if a lesbian were writing this, her perspective would be entirely different. I am a white man. The experience of being gay in a community of color is different than mine, too, especially since gay people of color experience a double discrimination that I can only imagine. I grew up in a family that was poor, uneducated, and deeply religious, in a rural, largely segregated region of Kentucky, where we were tobacco tenant farmers, living without running water and central heat, but unaware of how poor we were. All of that colors who I was, who I came to be, and how I understand my own story. Not in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine a world in which we’d be talking openly about homosexuality, much less having an international debate in which I’d sometimes, reluctantly, find myself at the center.

I am a Christian. The fact that I am tempted to add “but not that kind of Christian” speaks to the powerful role the conservative Religious Right has come to play in this debate. While I believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, I don’t believe he is the sole revelation of God’s self to the world. I respect and revere all those who have come to know God through other faith journeys. I can only speak out of my own context as a Christian, and I trust others to make the connections and translations into the understandings of their own faith communities. After all, the challenge before us as citizens of democracies is to define our rights and responsibilities to one another no matter what our beliefs are.

Why are we here in this particular moment in the history of this country and in the struggle for human rights? In the 1970s, most North Americans, like most Britons or Australians, would have told you – honestly – that they didn’t know any gay or lesbian people. If pushed, they might admit that there was weird Uncle Harry, a lifelong bachelor who everyone knew was a bit different, or those two spinster ladies who’d lived together down the street for as long as anyone could remember. But did they know any out, proud, and self-affirming gay and lesbian people? Probably not.

Fast-forward to today. Is there anyone left who doesn’t know a family member, co-worker, or neighbor who is gay? The reason, of course, is that the intervening decades have seen the unprecedented efforts of gay and lesbian people to make themselves known – as gay and lesbian – to their families, co-workers, and friends. Progress, of course, has proceeded at differing rates based on geography and culture. Metropolitan areas, to which many gay and lesbian people have gravitated because of both anonymity and generally more liberal attitudes, were the vanguard of these public admissions of sexual orientation, and these more secular, less religious, settings have provided more open and accepting environments for coming out. But the real shift in the culture has been the quiet, mostly private admissions by sons and daughters, cousins and aunts and uncles, in families from Birmingham to Boise, from Liverpool to Chipping Norton, from Winnipeg to Sydney: “Yes, I too am gay.”

It was the countless dramas, played out one at a time, of gay and lesbian people, courageously sharing who they really were at the core of their being with those they loved or worked with, that has literally changed the world and brought us to this moment.

That’s the way change always happens. You have a world view that seems to work pretty well at interpreting reality—then bam! Something happens that doesn’t fit into that view – something that your old world view can’t even explain. You’re thrown into chaos and confusion, and nothing seems certain anymore. And then, little by little, your old world view is reshaped to accommodate this new truth.

That’s the way it happens for families of gay and lesbian people. Parents believe the traditional view that homosexuals are immoral, sick, disordered, and misguided – until a beloved child comes and says, “Mom, Dad, I’m gay.” The parents are plunged, on the one hand, into the chaos of knowing their beloved children are not immoral, sick, disordered, or misguided, and on the other hand, knowing that what’s been said about gay people by the Church and the world. Over time, they come to understand that their children are exactly the same people they’ve always been, only happier and healthier. The old world view about homosexuality is overhauled into a new understanding that allows parents to continue loving their children. They may not be out there beating the drum for marriage equality (although many of them are), and they may not be bragging to all their friends about their son’s new boyfriend (though some of them may), but something deep and important has changed, some significant piece of ground has shifted, and the world isn’t the same as it was. That is happening all over the world at any given moment.

Sneak Preview of Part 2
There’s not a single nation, culture, or religion that isn’t dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Even those religions that are absolutely clear and unswerving in their condemnation of homosexuality are being challenged by their gay and lesbian members to take another look at that condemnation. Some estimate, for example, that between 40 and 60 percent of Roman Catholic priests are gay. [Stuart, Elizabeth, Chosen: Gay Catholic Priests Tell Their Stories] The Southern Baptist Convention, to which local autonomy is almost sacred, has expelled congregations for offering blessings to same-sex couples or for calling a gay minister. Conservative Jews have admitted gay and lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered rabbinical students to their seminaries. Evangelical Christians have been rocked by revelations that some of their leaders have had secret affairs with people of the same sex.

Note: This text appears in In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, by Gene Robinson, © 2008 Church Publishing Incorporated. Used by permission of the publisher. Bishop Robinson’s book will be available in April 2008. Order now from Church Publishing.

Part Two of Bishop Robinson's "Civil Discourse" will be published in the next day or two.

Addendum (01/10/08): Continue to Part 2 of Bishop Robinson's essay here.

Easter Gift

2007-12-31T18:27:00.000-06:00

Fr. Bill Easter is one of the finest and most generous priests in the Episcopal Church. Here he tells the story of his search for the perfect gift for our departing bishop, Jeffrey Steenson, who had announced earlier that he was leaving the Episcopal Church to become a Roman Catholic with the intention of teaching Patristics in that church. It would be difficult to imagine any two people who would enjoy this event more than Bill Easter and Jeffrey Steenson.

– Thomas B. Woodward

What Do You Give Your Bishop When He Leaves For Rome?
by the Rev. Bill Easter

I had selected what I thought was a very proper parting gift for Jeffrey that I planned to give him at an informal farewell party of some 30 clergy.

Alas, I managed to miss the party, so I called Jeffrey the Friday after the party and made arrangements for a visit at his office in the Diocesan Center. I found him dressed in mufti, packing books in boxes.

We sat and after some preliminary courtesies, I presented the gift along these lines: "Jeffrey, I was tasked with finding you a proper gift as befits your departure and your new undertaking. Knowing me as you do, you can appreciate what a challenge it was for me. I had no idea of proper, but had confidence that I would know it when I saw it. Lo, it came suddenly and without fanfare, fetched by two angels.

"It will, I trust, serve you well in the days ahead and create in you nostalgia for your many years in the Episcopal Church. As for serving you in the days ahead, this gift will permit you to bring peace and quiet to the eternal city of Rome. As you know, the drivers in Rome use their horns instead of brakes, with the result of a nightmarish cacophony that incessantly assaults the ear. Properly displayed, this gift will still the Roman racket, for which you will be richly blessed and your fame spread and celebrated."

I then handed him the handsomely wrapped gift. Jeffrey unwrapped it and found a bumper sticker that read:

Honk if your bishop is a woman

Jeffrey smiled, thanked me, and said, "I've heard of this." We embraced and parted.

The two angels were of the female persuasion and will remain anonymous to protect the guilty.

About the Author: The Rev. Bill Easter resides in the Diocese of the Rio Grande (where he has been licensed for fifteen years), but is canonically resident in the Diocese of Chicago. He has previously written for The Episcopal Majority and is an esteemed member of The Episcopal Church Institute.

Recent Events in San Joaquin

2007-12-29T20:35:00.000-06:00

A few of us are avid readers of the Episcopal blogs and websites, but many of our readers are not. For those in the latter group, we offer this background.

For a good summary, visit Father Jake's site. Over in the right-hand sidebar, he has a roundup of news and commentaries on events in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin; go to the sidebar on the right, scroll down past "Recent Comments" to the section entitled "Previous Posts," and there is a subsection: "The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin." Or … continue reading below for our attempt to summarize events of the past three weeks.

The people meeting in the diocesan convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin voted this month to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate, instead, with the Province of the Southern Cone (which encompasses some far-flung parishes in southern and eastern South America). In the lead-up to this convention, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori warned then-Episcopal Bishop John-David Schofield that an affirmative vote would constitute an actionable breach from the Episcopal Church.

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has consistently made it clear what will happen to dioceses that pretend to leave the Episcopal Church. In letters she has written to Bishops Schofield, Duncan, and Iker, she has explained the process clearly: For bishops like Schofield (and Duncan and Iker, who seem to be following shortly behind) who pretend to remove their dioceses from the Episcopal Church:

the Presiding Bishop could ask the Title IV Review Committee to consider whether the bishops who have proposed and supported them have abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.

Current members of the Title IV Review Committee are Bishop Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina (president), Bishop Suffragan Bavi E. Rivera of Olympia, Bishop Suffragan David C. Jones of Virginia, Bishop C. Wallis Ohl Jr. of Northwest Texas, the Rev. Carolyn Kuhr of Montana, the Very Rev. Scott Kirby of Eau Claire, J.P. Causey Jr. of Virginia and Deborah J. Stokes of Southern Ohio.

The letter continues:

If the Presiding Bishop presented materials to the Review Committee regarding potential abandonment by those bishops, and if the Committee agreed that abandonment had taken place, the bishops would have two months to recant. If they failed to do so, the matter would go to the full House of Bishops. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the House of Bishops.
If the House concurred, the Presiding Bishop could depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Members of congregations in the diocese remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.
An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.
A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

The San Joaquin convention nonetheless voted on December 8 to secede from the Episcopal Church and become members of the Province of the Southern Cone. The Episcopal Church responded here.

Many of us continue to scratch our heads, wondering how a region that is so obviously within the borders of the U.S. could suddenly pretend that is now within South America. TEM's Tom Woodward highlighted the incongruity of this move in his "Plastic Man" essay.

Shortly after that convention, ENS reported that former bishop Schofield was threatening to close any missions that didn't support him – or whose vicars didn't support him – at the diocesan convention. In a December 11 story, ENS reported that mission congregations were being threatened by Schofield. That story is here, and Father Jake added commentary here.

Meanwhile, on December 14, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori wrote to Schofield, asking him to clarify his status, and to declare whether he was or wasn't still a member of the Episcopal Church. Schofield's rather strange response was posted here. Having spoken boldly about the apostasy of the Episcopal Church, Schofield suddenly began mincing words in his official response. Mark Harris analyzed the response.

It didn't take long for former Episcopal bishop Schofield to begin taking action. The vicar of St. Nicholas Episcopal Church (Atwater, CA) had failed to "vote with" the bishop at convention. On December 20, the former Episcopal bishop had threatened the mission church of St. Nicholas with closure, and the vicar wrote to Southern Cone Bishop Schofield, asking him to clarify his intentions. Episcopal Life and Father Jake carried the story. At The Episcopal Majority, we declared Father Risard our hero of the month.

Southern Cone Bishop Schofield did visit St. Nicholas on Advent IV, December 23. Father Risard allowed him to preach and to celebrate the Eucharist on December 23, in an act that strikes us as generous, given that Schofield had taken himself outside the Episcopal Church. No summary can capture the events that occurred during that service. Read the first-hand reports at Father Jake's site here and here. Southern Cone bishop Schofield addressed the congregation after the Eucharist and just before the recessional. He said he had not come to fire Father Risard nor to close the mission, then he announced Father Risard would no longer be paid to serve the mission. Father Risard responded, providing his perspective on events. The most detailed and dispassionate report is available here.

Events escalated on Christmas morning, when Southern Cone Bishop Schofield's Canon to the Ordinary sent an e-mail to St. Nicholas' deacon and senior warden, announcing that Father Risard was fired, that locks were to be changed, that financial control was to be ceded to the diocese of San Joaquin (Southern Cone), and that all records were to be turned over to the diocese. Again, Father Jake provides the best one-stop summary of those events. Several wags have commented on the irony that the priest of St. Nicholas was fired on Christmas day. [Photo at right is courtesy Debbie Noda, The Modesto Bee.]

The deacon of St. Nicholas complied with Schofield's request. Other members of the mission plan to meet offsite tomorrow. It remains to be seen what will happen next. [Edited 12/31, as the senior warden was not involved with the lock-changing et al.]

So far, there has been no official comment or news announcement from the Episcopal Church. It is likely that the church leadership is consulting and working carefully behind the scenes to ensure that our constitution and canons are followed. According to an ENS story on December 11, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori already has appointed Canon Robert Moore "to provide an ongoing pastoral presence to the continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin." By all accounts, he was present with the people of St. Nicholas last Sunday.

Father Jake has provided this compendium of sites that have reported or reflected on the San Joaquin developments. As he observes, so far, most sites on the "right side of the aisle" have been strangely silent on this story.

Since the secession vote was taken in San Joaquin, Father Jake has been the "one-stop" source for news and information about developments there. We encourage you to visit there for up-to-date information.

What can Episcopalians do in the light of all this?

With all that is occurring within San Joaquin, this much is clear: It's going to take a great deal to support the Episcopal Church in this region. One organization is taking the lead in working with the leadership of the Episcopal Church, and that is Remain Episcopal.

First and foremost, pray for the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Episcopalians there will need comfort, strength, discernment, and wisdom.

Second, send a tangible note of support via their website, as The Episcopal Majority – like many other individuals and organizations – have done.

Finally, the tasks facing the diocese will require considerable financial support. You can make contributions (via their 501(c)(3) organization) to Remain Episcopal at:

Remain Episcopal
2067 W. Alluvial
Fresno, CA 93711

Plastic Man

2007-12-27T21:49:00.000-06:00

Plastic Man and his Evil Brother Struggle for the Church
by the Rev. Thomas B. Woodward

About the Author: Thomas B. Woodward, a Board member of The Episcopal Majority, is an Episcopal priest who has served the church over 23 years as university chaplain at a number of campuses and as rector of St. Paul's, Salinas, California, John Steinbeck's parish church. He has written two books for Seabury Press, Turning Things Upside Down and To Celebrate. He and his wife, Ann, now live in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Lateral thinkers are those whose minds often roam from one idea or image to another and then to still another – most often with connections between the ideas or images known only to themselves. We often end up confused by all the non-plussed reactions of others, but on the other hand, sometimes we see connections that others miss.

For example, this morning while preparing to pay some bills I discovered that the only stamps we have left are the recently issued “Superheroes Series” and there, in a prominent position, was my favorite Superhero from my youth: Plastic Man. My Superhero could twist himself into any configuration that would serve the cause of justice or the public order – and best of all, he could stretch out one of his arms to incredible lengths in order to accomplish his will. More than once, I thought of the absolute disaster that would follow if Plastic Man were to defect to The Other Side.

Given all that, it was easy to make the connection between my superhero Plastic Man stamps with the recent actions of my old seminary classmate, John-David Schofield. John-David announced recently that he is now not a bishop of the Episcopal Church, but of the Province of the Southern Cone (which consists of Anglicans in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay – and having once flown from the United States to Argentina, I can assure you that is a long, long way away, even for Plastic Man).

Here is the connection: What was the first episcopal action to be taken by the Southern Cone’s newest bishop, the former Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin? It was to reach across nearly all of South America, all of Central America, up through Mexicali and Calixico and the San Fernando Valley, up through Bakersfield and Fresno into the small town of Atwater, California, to jerk the much loved vicar of St. Nicholas Episcopal Church there out of his pulpit and toss him into the street. (Go to Father Jake's place to catch up on all the fast-breaking news.) That’s right: Schofield has been bishop in the Province of the Southern Cone for less than a month, and he reached across two continents to dump a priest of another Province who had hosted him as an honored visiting bishop from a foreign jurisdiction less than a week ago.

What are we to make of this? Has my old seminary classmate become a twenty-first century reincarnation of my childhood Superhero? If so, isn’t this a stretch way, way beyond the abilities of the Plastic Man honored on my stamps? And is there anyone in or out of the D.C. Comics crowd who would dare to imagine that Fr. Fred Risard, the Vicar of St. Nicholas (Atwater, California) is really the immoral equivalent of a Martin Manhunter or a Queen Bee, those dastardly representatives of the Forces of Darkness and Evil who used to do monthly battle with the real Plastic Man?

Knowing John-David’s near worship of the church’s tradition and what he and others mistakenly refer to as “the faith once delivered by the saints,” I can only conclude that what we are dealing with here is not a reincarnation of Plastic Man, but of his evil twin brother, known only to a few as Blast-ic Man. But how can we tell the difference between Plastic Man and Blastic Man? Let me try:

Plastic Man serves the cause of peace and justice;
Blastic Man talks of “battle” and “warfare” while serving the cause of male privilege.

Plastic Man extends his arms to ward off those who would punish;
Blastic Man extends his arms to swat those who disagree with him in order to punish.

Plastic Man extends his arms to embrace those who have been pushed to the margins;
Blatsic Man extends his arms as a shield to repel those he does not understand or respect.

Plastic Man takes responsibility for his actions – and responds in the light of day.
Blastic Man blames everyone but himself – and responds by hiding behind others.

Now as I try to find some appropriate way of ending this piece, my mind goes to another movie, which is about a comic book anti-hero who lived his early life as a gentle, caring fellow but then turned into a force of malevolence and retribution, punishing all who had dared to challenge his own, small world.

I know the image is unfair. I know my seminary classmate has a reputation as one of the best retreat leaders in the country and as a fabulous pastor to those who have not challenged or disagreed with him. Even so, his taking revenge against Fr. Risard has all the marks of the work of that other comic strip character, The Toxic Avenger. Even non- linear thinkers can jump to this conclusion. After all, his recent actions have been both toxic and avenging. What more do we need? Even so, many will continue to harbor their doubts about my classmate’s true identity: after all, that reaching across continents to jerk a pastor away from his people sure sounds like Blastic Man.

You and I live in a church that affirms that we are the Body of Christ – and that those who attack and invade the Church which is the Body of Christ must be identified as such and resisted with all the force we can muster. That is so whether their names are Schofield or Akinola, Kolini or Lyons. We do not need to wait for Batman and Robin, Plastic Man or Wonder Woman to front for us or to save us. Our willingness to stand together in defense of what God has given us in the Episcopal Church will be more than adequate. We have, after all, been marked with the sign of the Cross, evidence that we have been called and chosen by God to be the real Superheroes. Our armor is as St. Paul describes it, the breastplate of righteousness and all the rest. Our powers are not the usual ones, but faithfulness to a Kingdom based on the Beatitudes, the Comparison of the Sheep and the Goats, and the inclusive, all-embracing love of the Good Shepherd.

The power of a Blastic Man or a Toxic Avenger is, in the end, nothing but wind, sound and fury to be sure – but in the end, only wind.

Forthcoming Series

2007-12-27T12:52:00.000-06:00

Several of us has the good fortune to catch Bishop Gene Robinson's lecture at NOVA Southeastern University, delivered on November 27th and broadcast on C-Span on December 8th. Our webmaster and Board member Lisa Fox provided a link to the webcast on her personal blog. Several people have contacted Lisa and The Episcopal Majority, wishing they could read a written transcript of the bishop's remarks.

We are pleased to announce that Bishop Robinson has graciously given us permission to publish his lecture. Delivered at NOVA Southeastern University Law School last month, it will appear in Bishop Robinson's new book, In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, to be published in April in the U.S., by Church Publishing/Morehouse, and in the U.K. by SCM/Canterbury Press.

We will publish his lecture in sections over the coming days, as a gift to our readers and the wider church.

On the Night Before Christmas

2007-12-24T15:25:00.000-06:00

This is The Episcopal Majority's second Christmas message to our readers. This year the Rev. David K. Fly (President, TEM) offers his reflections.

On the Night Before Christmas

Many years ago, on the night before Christmas, when I was a little boy, after my sister and I were sent to bed and the last light was put out, I would feel a tugging at the blankets that covered me and would find my younger sister standing by my bed. "Do you want to listen again tonight?" she would ask. And then she would crawl into my bed, and the two of us would sit very still in the dark and listen for Santa. "Do you think he will come?" she always asked. I, the older brother, would respond, "Of course he will come. Be quiet now and listen." There we would lie, snuggled up together in bed, listening for sounds of his coming. Occasionally one of us would say, "Did you hear that?" and we would each strain to catch the sound the other heard. At those times, I could hear the beating of my heart.

I remember one year in particular that my sister swore she heard sleigh bells. I didn't hear them but was so excited by what she told me that, by the next morning, I was confidently telling my mom and dad that I, too, had heard them clearly. But even on those nights when we didn't hear a thing, we believed that something wonderful was happening just beyond the reach of our hearing and even though it eluded us again for another year, we would soon wake to find he'd been there.

I don't think I've changed a lot since then. I have, of course, had my own children and often found them snuggled together, asleep in one another's arms after trying very hard to stay up all night to listen for the sounds of Santa. I still find myself being aware of those late night silences on Christmas Eve and I find that I am listening more intently than on most nights of the year. Perhaps tonight I will hear him too.

I suspect this image has come back to me this year because of all the noise that has been generated in the Anglican Communion in the past couple of years. We’ve all been talking so loudly we haven’t taken much time to listen. So, perhaps, tonight, we can simply be still and become aware of our own hopes and fears, doubts and uncertainties, needs and longings. What are the sounds we so desperately need to hear?

The cry of a baby to assure us of life's inherent goodness
The soft rustle of angels' wings to let us know we are not alone
The lullaby of a mother to her child to soothe our hurt and ease our pain
Or the ecstatic shouts of shepherds to share our joy that we have found the son of God

I cannot think of a more appropriate image for a night like this than that of children holding each other in the dark, listening for the one who is coming and knowing that even though he may elude them once again, they will awake to the wonderful signs that he has been and gone and their lives are filled with joy as a result. I would hope that the anticipation of children, of listening to our hearts beat with excitement would lead each of us tonight to the fulfillment of our dreams, our hopes, our longings.

O little town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie!
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by. . .
How silently, how silently, the wondrous gift is given . . .
O come to us, abide with us,
Our Lord, Emmanuel!

Amen.

Unexpected Praise for TEC

2007-12-20T22:18:00.000-06:00

As Episcopalians, we do what we believe God is calling us to do, often with little expectation that we will be thanked for making life better for someone else. That is not the point. The point is that we do God's will, whether or not we are thanked or even recognized for what we do. As someone said of the story of Jesus' healing of ten lepers, the miracle was not that one returned to say thanks, but that ten were healed.

What follows is really extraordinary. It comes from a source not connected to the Christian Church other than suffering the wounds inflicted by Christians over the years. We hope it warms your heart, as it did ours.

– Thomas B. Woodward
for The Episcopal Majority

There's a fine essay today in The Advocate.

The essay begins:

It used to be that the gays merely caused popular disgust. Then in the Bush-Cheney era -- made possible by the Republicans' ability to capitalize on our potential to incite the aforementioned popular disgust -- Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and their conservative Christian minions blamed us in quick succession for 9/11, the Southeast Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and the U.S. military's mounting death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Accustomed as we are to being fingered by religious leaders for all manner of secular cataclysm, it seems an extraordinary turnabout that now, even as we figure prominently in an ecclesiastical crisis, Episcopal leaders, far from ringing us up for the damages, either downplay our role in the fight or stand up for our honor.

Here are some other highlights:

I firmly believe that within a generation the antigay hate speech Bishop Schofield so freely espouses will receive as little tolerance as we do today, and I look forward to a time when men like him will wish they had quietly harbored hatred rather than staking their reputations on it. Meanwhile, Bishop Jefferts Schori and other proponents of inclusion will be credited with having furthered the integrity of their faith institutions as dynamic, relevant forces in the 21st century.

Non-Episcopalian gays and lesbians might not think we have a dog in this fight, but we all have a vested interest in the outcome. We find ourselves in a very rare position here, one so unfamiliar to LGBT people we can scarcely grasp its significance: In the determination of the U.S. Episcopal Church to take a stand for our equality and inclusion, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose, while the folks fighting for us risk their political and financial footing in the Anglican Communion, the third-largest Christian body in the world, which is far more sympathetic toward your Bishops Schofield than to the progressive platform embraced by Bishop Jefferts Schori and the majority of her church's 2.5 million members.

We never asked Episcopalians to take up our fight. Rather, it seems, their spiritual path has led them to believe that we aren't any less deserving of ministry or recognition or even consecration simply because we happen to be unpopular sexual minorities. I wish that weren't an extraordinary concept in 2007, but it is. And Bishop Jefferts Schori has hardly blinked in a year of denominational strife that has seen her character and her commitment to her religious office questioned, challenged, dismissed, and maligned.

In this age of gay bashing from all sides, it isn't often we encounter a religious leader—or any leader—willing to bulldog for our rights, especially when faced with such a potentially high cost to herself and the institution she represents. What I wouldn't give for such genuine representation in our elected officials.

When I consider the trail of broken promises left by those we helped to elect, Bishop Jefferts Schori's position becomes that much more remarkable. Reacting to the secession vote in San Joaquin, she not only refused to retreat from her position, she reiterated it: "We deeply regret their unwillingness or inability to live within the historical Anglican understanding of comprehensiveness. We wish them to know of our prayers for them and their journey. The Episcopal Church will continue in the diocese of San Joaquin, albeit with new leadership.

I keep meaning to bake that woman a cake.

In my fruitless search for a presidential candidate who not only believes in my essential equality but is willing to say it out loud and stand by his or her position when the inevitable attacks come down, I wonder if any money I may have set aside to donate to that elusive candidate's campaign might not be better spent tithing to the Episcopal Church. At least there I know my support will go toward furthering my rights, not sending them to the back of the bus—or throwing them under it.

Father Jake also posted this story. He concluded the post simply, with "Some days, I really love my Church!" We simply say "Amen!"

Read it all here.

Hero of the Month

2007-12-20T22:00:00.000-06:00

We are aware that many who log onto The Episcopal Majority are Episcopalians looking for some kind of light or inspiration in remaining Episcopalians in a hostile environment. It is for you, especially, that we post this inspiring story (via Episcopal Life Online) of courage in the face of abusive power:

SAN JOAQUIN: Atwater vicar asks bishop to clarify planned visit
By Mary Frances Schjonberg, December 20, 2007

The vicar of St. Nicholas Episcopal Church in Atwater, California, in the Diocese of San Joaquin has written to Bishop John-David Schofield questioning his plan to visit the congregation December 23 and asking for clarification about his status as a bishop in the Episcopal Church.

The Rev. Fred Risard noted in his December 20 letter to Schofield that St. Nicholas had "already had the pleasure of your annual visitation for 2007."

"Without notice of the upcoming visit we have not had the opportunity to prepare candidates for confirmation, nor is the Bishop's Committee prepared to meet with you," Risard continued.

The vicar told Schofield that he has the permission of the mission's Bishop's Committee (which is the mission equivalent of a vestry) to request the clarifications. Risard also noted that he has consulted with legal counsel.

"We would like you to state to us your pastoral and canonical relationship with St. Nicholas Episcopal Church, and myself," Risard wrote in his letter. "You publicly stated at our diocesan convention that you no longer are the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, and instead you are a Bishop within the Province of the Southern Cone. As such, we understand your visit is simply to worship with us; there will be no liturgical role for you, neither celebrating nor preaching. The Episcopal Church welcomes all, and you are most welcome to worship, with the purpose of seeking transformation and reconciliation."

Delegates attending the 48th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin on December 8 voted overwhelmingly to leave the Episcopal Church and to align with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

Congregations and individual Episcopalians who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church are making plans for the continuation of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Continuing Episcopalians and their supporters are exchanging information and resources via the Remain Episcopal website.

On December 14, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori sent a short letter to Schofield asking him to confirm his declaration that he is now under the authority of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone "means you understand yourself to have departed the Episcopal Church and are no longer functioning as a member of the clergy in this Church." Schofield has not yet responded to the Presiding Bishop's request.

In a December 16 pastoral letter meant to be read or distributed in all the congregations of the diocese, Schofield said, in part, that the diocese is "no longer operating under the looming shadow" of what he called the Episcopal Church's "institutional apostasy."

"In all fairness, if the Presiding Bishop has asked for a clarification and hasn't received one, I think that the priests in the Diocese of San Joaquin are entitled to know, too," Mike Glass, a San Rafael, California-based attorney who represents congregations and individuals who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church within the diocese, told Episcopal News Service. Glass added that priests may be rightly concerned about violating church canons by allowing Schofield to preside in their congregations.

"Until that clarification comes from either the Episcopal Church's canonical processes or from the bishop himself, perhaps the bishop ought to refrain from attempting to exercise any episcopal authority," he added.

Neither Schofield nor any other spokesperson could be reached for comment.

Risard told ENS that Schofield spoke to a deacon at St. Nicholas by phone on December 20 and questioned the intent of Risard's letter. The vicar said that he emailed Schofield later in the day to assure him that he has no intention of banning him from worshipping with the mission congregation.

"I would never ban anybody from worship -- not even my worst enemy -- because I would hope that they would be transformed by the Eucharist and the grace of God," he said.

Risard said he is worried that Schofield is coming to St. Nicholas to either announce the closing of the mission or his removal as vicar, actions that Schofield has taken elsewhere in the diocese during his episcopate.

"Is it his intention to support the mission congregations in their call to worship and to serve the poor or does he want to close it?" Risard said. "He needs to go on record about what he's doing."

Noting that following their Eucharist, the mission congregation plans to "go out into the community to deliver groceries and coats to a dozen needy families as we seek to do the work of Mission which comes out of our worship of our Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior," Risard asked in his letter, "Will you be coming as our Episcopal Bishop, having repented of your actions at Diocesan Convention, seeking forgiveness and reconciliation? Or will you be coming to worship as a visiting foreign Bishop seeking to reconcile with your former congregation and Vicar, and, following the Mass, to join us as we take groceries and coats to the poor?"

The mission has sent announcements to the local newspapers "to reassure the public that the Episcopal Church is still present in the Merced area, where ALL are welcome to worship and do the work of the Mission," Risard said in his letter.

While he thinks it is proper for the Episcopal Church to be pursuing canonical procedures to clarify and then respond to Schofield's status and the actions of the convention, Risard told ENS that other issues must be addressed.

"We need a parallel and no less important conversation about filling the pews in San Joaquin," he said. "We all need to focus on the missions of the church -- not for my own self-interest -- but for the mission of the church" to bring people to Christ.

Among the people to whom Risard sent copies of the letter are Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson, and the Rev. Canon Robert Moore (whom Jefferts Schori appointed to provide an ongoing pastoral presence to the continuing Episcopalians in the diocese).

We join the The Rev. Fred Risard in his puzzlement. The former Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin has made it clear that he is no longer a part of the Episcopal Church. Now that he is a bishop in a Latin American diocese, we are perplexed that he would want to exercise episcopal jurisdiction in an Episcopal church.

Kudos to Father Risard for asking the pertinent question.

Addendum (12.28.07): Thanks to "Anonymous," who posted in the comments below. For up to date information about Fr. Fred and St. Nicholas click on this link. Also, the best source for news about the situation in the past week is being reported at Father Jake Stops the World.

Rowan's Prose

2007-12-18T17:46:00.000-06:00

Rowan Williams Could Use a Dose of Elmer Davis
by the Rev. George C. Bedell

Back during WW II, my father Chester Bedell, a plain-spoken, straight-forward lawyer, used to love to listen to Elmer Davis, because Davis, more than any of the other newscasters of the day, was plain-spoken. According to Ed Murrow, Davis was admired by the public, because his distinctive Indiana accent made so many Americans feel as though they were listening to their next door neighbor. I'd add that Americans could also readily grasp what Davis was saying. He came on CBS stations at 8:55 p.m., EST, and in five minutes was able to cover just about everything anybody wanted to know in plain and simple English.

One problem with Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, is his overly complex way of expressing himself. The most recent example of his prolixity is his "Advent letter." I haven't read such a dense, complex, and elusive piece of prose in a long time. I'm sure he wanted the letter to be persuasive to the people throughout the Anglican Communion, including those of us in the Episcopal Church. But only the most devoted would have taken the trouble to read it in its entirety.

I can imagine my late father exclaiming, had he seen the letter, "Oh, my goodness [his most emphatic phrase]! What is this man trying to say?!?" Being the good churchman he was, though, he would have waded through the essay, chirping all along the way about the Williams style. While he might have agreed with some of what Dr. Williams said, he would tell anyone within listening distance that the man has a problem expressing himself. I can imagine his sighing, "The man ought to have listened to Elmer Davis." [See Note 1.]

Fortunately, though, Bill Coats and Matthew Dutton-Gillett took the time and had the patience to elucidate and simplify for the rest of us what Dr. Williams said. I am particularly impressed with Matthew's conclusion that the only way out of the Church's current dilemma is to learn to live with paradox:

Paradox is the stock and trade of the kingdom of God. Perhaps when Jesus invites us to take up our crosses, he is inviting us to take up the burden of paradox: an instrument of death that is for us a symbol of life. Obedience to that call is called in the Scriptures "perfect freedom" – yet another paradox.

I find that suggestion remarkably helpful. I hope that everyone will take the time to "read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest" what Matthew has to say in his fine essay.

While I'm always engaged by Bill Coats's take on things, I'm not at all convinced about the viability of attempting to construct a Covenant. One of the marks of our way of doing things historically has been that we did not adopt a Confession, as did some of our ecclesiastical neighbors. We chose instead the venerable and workable via media. I give Dr. Williams credit for trying, though. He's appointed a Covenant Design Group that's already at work.

But who in the world believes that the Group can accomplish what Williams hopes it will? Even if the Group is composed of all the "right" people, it seems to me they are on a mission to accomplish the impossible, given the current attitude of those who are the most grievously affronted by the Episcopal Church's way of doing things.

That's why I find Matthew's way of the paradox so attractive: not to find some way to do Biblical criticism that everyone can agree on or to create a Covenant that everyone can agree to, both of which seem futile. But as Matthew suggests: each of us in our own way doing our best to become faithful followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Which reminds me: Could anyone truthfully say that Our Lord would have refused Gene Robinson a seat at His table?

Or, maybe I shouldn't even have asked that question.

In any case, best regards to all, and let's keep the conversation going ….

[Note 1. I might have added that it's too bad that Dr. Williams never encountered Abbo Martin, long-time English professor at Sewanee. He would certainly have cured Williams of his prolix style.]

About the Author: George Bedell, a priest in the Diocese of Florida, taught Religion at Florida State University, served as Vice Chancellor of the State University System of Florida, and was Director of the University Press of Florida before retiring in 1996. George is also a member of the Board of Directors of The Episcopal Majority.

Listening

2007-12-17T21:50:00.000-06:00

by Christopher L. Webber

Editor's Note: Chris Webber sent us this essay on November 27 – well before some of the more dramatic, recent events occurred in the Anglican Communion. Be mindful that his essay was written before the Bishop of San Joaquin left the Episcopal Church, before the dioceses of Fort Worth and Pittsburg made their first steps to leave the Episcopal Church, before the Archbishop of Canterbury issued his Advent message, and so on. For one reason and another, we are just now publishing his essay.

Christopher Webber's essay was written in response to the Anglican Communion's report of "the Listening Process."

With the distribution of the Archbishop of Canterbury's "Advent message," Chris Webber's essay seems even more relevant … and perhaps more elegiac.

They say that there’s no sound if a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it. Likewise if the tree falls in a thunderstorm, perhaps there’s no noise because the air waves are already full.

In 1998 the bishops of the Anglican Communion said we “commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons.” In recent weeks the committee planning for the next gathering of Anglican bishops (scheduled for 2008) has been gathering reports in how the listening process has been going. Amid the chaos and confusion, what can be heard? As one interested listener, what I hear first of all is the incredible diversity of the voices and the improbability that Anglicans will arrive at a common mind anytime soon.

Connecticut Episcopalians are often baffled by the attitudes of Episcopalians in Fort Worth, but at least we are all Americans and follow teams in the NBA. When we add England and Australia to the mix, we no longer have sports in common, but do still speak English - albeit sometimes with accents stranger than a Texas twang. But what do we have in common with Anglicans in Myanmar and the Congo?

Consider, for example, that Myanmar has been involved in a struggle with a brutal dictatorship and that the Congo has been enduring devastating civil conflict. The Anglican Church of the Congo says, quite honestly, “circumstances prevent any response at this time.” Likewise, the Church in the Sudan reports that “social healing” is its priority.

Then, too, there are societies in which conversations about sexuality seem impossible because such conversations are so contrary to their traditions. The Japanese Anglican Church reports that “the culture does not allow for talking about sexuality and so there is little awareness in the congregations of the presence or otherwise of lesbian or gay people and no need, or way of talking about that. In this context it is hard for listening to happen.” In Hong Kong, we are told, “sexuality is not talked about even in private conversations.” In Melanesia “it is not generally thought seemly to discuss sex publicly.”

On the other hand, there are churches unable to hear because their minds are already made up. The Church in Nigeria has reported that “homosexuality is sin” but “the church will respond pastorally to repentance.” There is legislation in Nigeria, which the church supports, to ban “same sex unions, all homosexual acts and the formation of any gay groups.” That makes listening more than a little difficult! The Church of the Southern Cone (Argentina and Chile) objects even to being asked. They have no time, they tell us, for “manufactured agendas . . . foisted on them.”

Listening ought also to go in both directions. It is well worth listening to the Church in Uganda when they report on the ways in which they have already “challenged culture with wonderful results. It has ended the traditions of revenge and enslavement to evil spirits. It has widened the circle of love beyond the immediate family and thus broken strife and mutual exploitation this caused. Inter-ethnic marriage has produced a united society. It has freed women from the bonds of male oppression and challenged polygamy and divorce at will and valued the biblical institution of marriage. It has satisfied the quest for a living God and transformed society especially in the political sphere. It is this obedience to the Holy Scriptures which has enabled the church to counter HIV/AIDS.” They note that they have been ordaining women for some twenty years but when they set up a commission to deal with the listening process it reported that “Concerning homosexual behaviour and relationships in particular, from a plain reading of Scripture, from a careful reading of Scripture and from a critical reading of Scripture, it has no place in God’s design of creation, the continuation of the human race through procreation, or His plan of redemption.” They have also been dealing with dictatorship and civil conflict, but they make no excuses. When they have done so much, can they be faulted for not doing more?

Consider, then, societies that might seem more like that of the United States. Australia might seem not that different, but they report that they have had “difficulty in creating a listening process because homosexuals fear consequences of public identification.” They add that there has been “more shouting than listening in some areas.” Canada began a process of listening in 1976 but reports that there is “no common mind” and they are “continuing to listen.” The Church in Ireland reports cryptically that: “The bishops believed that it was more important to find a temporary accommodation of a disagreement between parties pending a permanent settlement than to assert abstract decrees.”

The Episcopal Church report notes that its listening process began in the 1960s and that there is still widespread disagreement on the subject. So what can we expect when we learn that the Korean Church began its listening process in 1998, Brazil in 1999, and New Zealand in 2006, while in Wales the formal listening process has not yet begun?

Yet these all are Christian Churches, formed by the same Prayer Book tradition, and amidst the diversity there are reminders that the Holy Spirit is at work and that the churches do want to provide a pastoral ministry to all people and develop a deeper understanding of an issue that often sparks more heat than light. The Church in Burundi says that “the debate challenges our understanding of marriage and family” but that it “remains willing to listen to the concerns and challenges of all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion and its ecumenical partners so that we walk together in a way that honours the name of Christ and witnesses to his reconciling love in a hurting and fragmented world. . . All through the current debate on human sexuality the church has prayerfully encouraged unity, understanding and dialogue within the household of God.” Similarly, the Church in the West Indies acknowledges that although homosexuality is “viewed unfavorably in most areas” and “extremes of gay rights and fundamentalism (are) unhelpful . . . change is happening.” They have asked the Bishop of New York to come and help them plan a listening process.

One can hope that the Lambeth bishops did not expect in 1998 that a consensus would have emerged by now. Nor, it seems, will ten more years be likely to bring us all to the same page. But if we listen carefully, we may come to a better understanding of each other and a greater ability to work together in our global village. We may even hear the Holy Spirit at work to do more than we could humanly have expected in ways beyond our imagining.

To learn more, visit the Anglican Communion's "Listening" page.

Worth Repeating

2007-12-16T13:00:00.000-06:00

We don't often pull comments up here onto the main page. This one struck me as being both simple and insightful, and not as predictable as most reactions from the "right" and "left" have been.

ruidh left this comment on our post, "Coats on the Archbishop's Letter":

You are all missing the conversation because you're only reading the words.

On one side we have certain Primates and schismatic Episcopalians telling us that TEC is apostate. That kind of talk doesn't even get a hearing with the ABC.

The Global South has called for a boycott of Lambeth if TEC is invited. Everyone concentrates on who is excluded. More of them are left without invitations than those of us. This is encouraging.

The ABC is not taking sides. But he is defining the debate as much as anyone else. Extremists on both sides criticize him for not taking their side.

I thank him for staking out the middle. The place where unity trumps posturing.

I haven't heard anyone else offer this perspective, but I think there's much wisdom in it. What say you all?

The ABCs of Communion

2007-12-15T19:47:00.000-06:00

The Rev. Matthew Dutton-Gillett offers his observations on the Advent message from the Archbishop of Canterbury and on a possible way forward for the Anglican Communion. Here is a snippet:

All of us, I think, believe ourselves to be living under the authority of Scripture, and believe that we are seeking to be obedient to what is revealed in the biblical witness in terms of what God offers and requires of us.

The problem lies in the key to each of its elements: “common acknowledgment”. While we easily see our own faithfulness in terms of this definition of full communion, we have trouble seeing the faithfulness of those with whom we disagree. And the Archbishop’s quest to find a way to hold the Anglican family together will not be successful unless we can come to a place of common acknowledgment. And as far as I can see, there are only two choices that could bring us to that place: exclusion or agreeing to live in a state of paradox.

Read his essay below.

The ABC on the ABCs of Communion
by the Rev. Matthew Dutton-Gillett

In his most recent communication to the Primates of the Anglican Communion – one which he hopes will be widely circulated among clergy and laity alike – the Archbishop of Canterbury lays out his understanding of what “a full relationship of communion will mean.” In doing so, he describes three elements that he views as constitutive of such a relationship:

“The common acknowledgment that we stand under the authority of Scripture as ‘the rule and ultimate standard of faith’, in the words of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral; as the gift shaped by the Holy Spirit which decisively interprets God to the community of believers and the community of believers to itself and opens our hearts to the living and eternal Word that is Christ. Our obedience to the call of Christ the Word Incarnate is drawn out first and foremost by our listening to the Bible and conforming our lives to what God both offers and requires of us through the words and narratives of the Bible.”
“The common acknowledgement of an authentic ministry of Word and Sacrament. We remain in communion because we trust that the Lord who has called us by his Word also calls men and women in other contexts and raises up for them as for us a ministry which can be recognised as performing the same tasks - of teaching and pastoral care and admonition, of assembling God's people for worship, above all at the Holy Communion.”
“The common acknowledgement that the first and great priority of each local Christian community is to communicate the Good News. When we are able to recognise biblical faithfulness and authentic ministry in one another, the relation of communion pledges us to support each other's efforts to win people for Christ and to serve the world in his Name."

I cannot imagine that any Anglican/Episcopalian in the world would disagree with any of the elements of the Archbishop’s definition of full communion. All of us, I think, believe ourselves to be living under the authority of Scripture, and believe that we are seeking to be obedient to what is revealed in the biblical witness in terms of what God offers and requires of us. Each of us believes our church to be enlivened by an authentic ministry of Word and Sacrament (although some would exclude women, gays and lesbians from those who can legitimately exercise it), and I can’t imagine any of us disagreeing with the idea that the primary purpose of a Christian community is to proclaim the Good News.

No, the problem is not with the Archbishop’s definition. The problem lies in the key to each of its elements: “common acknowledgment”. While we easily see our own faithfulness in terms of this definition of full communion, we have trouble seeing the faithfulness of those with whom we disagree. And the Archbishop’s quest to find a way to hold the Anglican family together will not be successful unless we can come to a place of common acknowledgment. And as far as I can see, there are only two choices that could bring us to that place: exclusion or agreeing to live in a state of paradox.

Exclusion, of course, is the easier path. Again and again over the centuries, this is the option that the church has chosen. When we exclude or excommunicate those who dissent from the majority opinion, we bring our house into order quite quickly, and we no longer have to deal with those “heretics." Of course, we also create more fractures in the Body of Christ, making Jesus’ desire that we might all be one even more of a distant dream.

It seems to me that Jesus himself doesn’t make the choice of exclusion. Rather, he seems to opt for living in a state of paradox. Over and over again, when Jesus talks about the kingdom of God, he speaks paradoxically. The kingdom of God is a reality that is already here, but yet not here. The kingdom of God is a place where the world as we know it is turned upside down, with the first being last and the last being first. Faithfulness to the life of the kingdom requires us to surrender our family allegiances – to “hate” father and mother, which hardly seems like a loving thing to do. According to the logic of the kingdom, death leads to life, crucifixion brings us resurrection. And according to that same logic, the church proclaims that Jesus is at one and the same time both God and human. Kings wear crowns of thorn in the kingdom of God, and power is seen most powerfully in faces of weakness and vulnerability. And those of us who have been admitted to the kingdom through baptism have died and been reborn.

Paradox is the stock in trade of the kingdom of God. Perhaps when Jesus invites us to take up our crosses, he is inviting us to take up the burden of paradox: an instrument of death that is for us a symbol of life. Obedience to that call is called in the Scriptures “perfect freedom” – yet another paradox.

For us to choose the way of paradox as Anglicans/Episcopalians, in the context of the Archbishop’s definition, would be to choose to see one another as being faithful even though that faithfulness does not look the same. It would be to acknowledge the faithfulness of the Archbishop of Nigeria and the faithfulness of the Bishop of New Hampshire – and the faithfulness of those they represent. Though I disagree with him on almost everything, can I see Archbishop Akinola as standing under the authority of Scripture and seeking to be obedient to his understanding of it? Am I able to acknowledge the authenticity of his sacramental ministry and share the Eucharist with him? Am I able to see that, in the context of Nigeria, his preaching may indeed constitute Good News for the vast majority of his people? And is someone who feels about the Bishop of New Hampshire the way I feel about the Archbishop of Nigeria able to do the same?

There is no question that to walk this way of paradox is hard. My mind cries out, “They can’t both be right! There is only one Truth!” But my heart and spirit are not quite as sure as my mind. As St. Paul pointed out, we see as in a mirror, darkly, so long as we are in this present life. Each of us is possessed of cloudy vision, only able to glimpse the partial – and only in those rarified moments of mystical exaltation to catch a brief glimpse of the whole.

Historically, Anglicanism has developed as a form of Christianity that is able to live the way of paradox effectively, if not always comfortably. With our emphasis on common prayer, we have acknowledged that within the context of that prayer we do not always share a common mind. Yet, we can nevertheless share in the life of the same community, hearing the same scriptural Word, partaking of the same Sacraments, all seeking to discover at the root and depth of everything the same living Word, the living and risen Christ.

The present situation has seemed to show us the limits of our tolerance for paradox. All the subtle shades of color seem to be draining out of our worldviews, and resolving into a stark black-and-white. This colorless world is simpler, but also more violent. It does not respect the dignity of every human being, nor does it very well reflect the richness of the kingdom of God.

I wish the Archbishop of Canterbury well in his efforts to find a way to keep the Anglican family together. But I am not, I must admit, very confident of our ability to choose the way of paradox, acknowledging one another’s faithfulness at the same time we are challenging one another to deepen that faithfulness. I fear that the church will relapse to its default mode for dealing with such profound disagreements and choose the way of exclusion and excommunication. It has already begun, and I’m not sure that even Lambeth Palace any longer has the power to stop it.

About the Author: Matthew Dutton-Gillett has previously written for The Episcopal Majority here and here and here. His biographical information appears here.

Coats on the Archbishop's Letter

2007-12-14T21:53:00.000-06:00

The Rev. William R. Coats was one of the founders and surely one of the most vocal, inspirational members of The Episcopal Majority. He sent this note to a few people in response to the Advent message from the Archbishop of Canterbury, and we are pleased to reprint it.

While many voices have been raised, from left and right, decrying the Archbishop's letter, it seems to us that Bill Coats offers a most reasonable interpretation. The Archbishop continues trying to give "space" to the Episcopal Church to work out our particular and unique vocation within the Anglican Communion. We are grateful for Bill's insights.

From: the Rev. William R. Coats

Williams' latest Advent message concerning the "state of the Church" will, I am sure, send up howls from many of our friends. I can't blame them. But I don't think we should assume all is lost. So here is my take - in the interest of some calm and hopefulness

It is an interesting missive. It conforms with Williams' long standing strategy - keep talking!! In the meantime, as always there are the usual potshots at the US. These are not new and after all half the Communion hates us, so he is only stating the obvious. For him to glibly suggests that the church is not homophobic is of course nonsense - and he probably knows it. But he does what leaders always do in a crisis, they fudge.

What is most interesting is that he acknowledges wide support for us. Simply stating this is, of course, a thorn in the side of our adversaries. Moreover, he does not like all the raiding going on. To say that some provision should be made for those who hate us and that the present option of boundary crossing is not good is to suggest that - after more talking!! - some other arrangements must be made which are less destructive. Now of course he knows it is too late for this, that the forming of alternative structures are already advanced and have been planned for years in advance and have come at his expense. He however will continue to overlook this and plan for something else. What would this something else be - and again after more talking!! Well whatever it is it will be less hostile and in some sense a critique of the Akinola- Duncan strategy. For such a "new" arrangement will now have to take into account all those folks who have supported us (for remember this is the first time such support has been rendered and been noted!!)

He expresses concern that our bishops' moratorium on lbgt etc was only until GC 2009 since as one house they could at GC veto anything the other house came up with short of a moratorium. He is no fool and knows our bishops simply can't say they rule even if they technically have a veto. And of course alluding to the special teaching charism of the office of bishop is romantic nonsense (which he may as an academic and an old Anglo-catholic really believe). He knows full well that politically our Bishops - charism or not - cannot simply rule. So I suspect this pot shot while maybe heartfelt was said to please the hostiles - and at a point where they are miffed. It of course means nothing at all.

What is interesting is his almost bland pass over of the question of same-sex blessings which he knows darn well has exercised the hostile more than anything else

His advertence to Lambeth is important. That is the only place Anglicans are Anglicans and he refuses to back down on his list of invitees. This puts pressure on Akinola and his gang, which Williams is well aware of.

And Lambeth beside all this meeting and praying will not solve this mess- as he well knows. What he hopes for is what I call round two - the Covenant. This business to which we must all sign on to may in fact be the way we all do come together, so long as it doesn't specifically turn on us. Thus when he mentions how 2/5 of the communion is ready to give us a pass and in Williams' words want to put this behind them the hint here is this group may not stand for a Covenant dominated by the hostiles whose main purpose is to exclude and humiliate us? Even Williams summation of Anglicanism at the beginning would be something I suspect we could sign on to - even the Biblical orthodoxy part (so long as no specifics are mentioned). I don't think this group will allow a Covenant dripping with hostility and aimed at us - nor do I think Williams thinks so either.

This was a rather well-presented document. Much of it is simply blather aimed at giving comfort to most and irritating some (especially the US and Canada). But we have been irritated for a long time so nothing has changed. Words don't mean much (as Machiavelli and Neibhur would have been happy to tell us). So I wouldn't worry much about this. In fact I think we got a hit, though we didn't score any runs. Yet.

Bill

Williams Speaks

2007-12-14T21:27:00.000-06:00

On the "Crisis" in the Anglican Communion

Ever since the Anglican Communion Office issued the Joint Standing Committee's report on the Episcopal Church (in late November), many of us have been awaiting further word from Archbishop Rowan Williams. That report did not offer any indication as to the Archbishop's thinking, but it promised he would communicate further in his Advent letter.

The Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter was released today. Follow that link to read it.

Many Episcopalians had hoped the Archbishop would come out with a clear, univocal statement that he was either "for" or "against" the Episcopal Church. This was not to be, of course. Episcopalians of all stripes should have learned by now to expect a careful, nuanced statement. And that is what he offered.

Episcopal Café was probably the first to note the release of the Archbishop's letter, and the comments there are thoughtful. They've also done a fine job of tracking reactions to the letter. Father Jake does his usual, fine job of analyzing the letter; read his analysis here. Mark Harris notes the inherent conflict between the Archbishop's Advent letter to the Communion and his Christmas letter (to all Christendom?). Episcopal News Service also posted a story that's well worth reading, including a preliminary reaction from Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori.

Comments are also being offered from the right side of the aisle. TitusOneNine's Kendall Harmon posted the letter; reactions from his readers can be seen here. In an unusual move, Canon Harmon posted his own analysis of the statement here; clearly, he is unhappy with Williams' failure to excoriate the Episcopal Church. The StandFirm blog posted the letter without analysis, but the 213 comments (to date) offer plenty of response. Mary Ailes offers her comments here and here; a member of Truro Church in Virginia, she is one of the influential laypeople on the right side of the aisle, and her anger is palpable.

As you read the news coverage, be aware of this: Trustworthy accounts say that the Archbishop's letter was written a few days ago and sent to the primates before being released to the public. By all accounts, his letter was written before the former leaders of the Diocese of San Joaquin voted to affiliate with the Province of the Southern Cone. [Correction, thanks to Ann Fontaine: According to this note from Father Jake, Greg Venables says: "[W]e primates received the letter this morning, 14 December, not before."]

Count on Thinking Anglicans to gather the news. We also expect the Episcopal Café to cover stories as they unfold.

Curiosity and Risk

2007-12-14T20:14:00.000-06:00

Two Hallmarks of a Faithful Life

I have a folder for the emails I want to go back to on a regular basis. The folder is titled “Inspirational.” The folder contains precious little that high school classmates send me because for some reason beyond my own comprehending, they think I will enriched by sappy and soupy religious sentiments.

My “Inspirational” folder contains a number of things, but the largest number is my collection of essays or reflections by Lane Denson. Lane often sees things that others don’t. Most of the time I am challenged by his reflections, other times comforted by them. What follows is, I believe, one of his best – entitled by Lane as “Risk” – prepared for Advent III and reflective of Matthew 11:2-11.

– Thomas B. Woodward

RISK

There is always an element of uncertainty in a life of faith.

For this, faith must have an open mind. And open minds are not only marked by curiosity, they are also marked by risk. Curiosity and risk are two of the hallmarks of a faithful life. To make faith into a closed system, nailed down in some century long past and for all time, is not faith, but dogma. It has its place. It is orderly. Above all, it is safe, for there is little or no risk. It is the life blood of religions. But it is not faith.

Even John Baptist, as certain as he once had been, finally had his moment of zen there in the dark of that prison when he sent his followers to ask Jesus, "Art thou he that should come? Or do we seek another?" Are you the one? Or do we have to keep waiting — and looking? If we're to believe that meeting between Mary and Elizabeth, their moms, John spent his entire life pointing to Jesus and walking and talking and preaching the risk of faith.

When the Baptiser finally got prison for his reward and entertained his greatest moment of doubt, Jesus understood. Jesus answered John in effect with what John already knew. He answered him with the only truthful answers that can ever be given to certify the presence and work of Jesus, the Christ.

The work you have already witnessed, he said to John, continues. Be assured. The blind see. The lame walk. The deaf hear. The poor and hungry are fed and finally know justice and peace. A broken world is being mended. And you know, as I, that wherever such healing takes place, there is present the kingdom of God.

We make covenant in our baptism to "seek and serve Christ in all persons … " And we can fairly ask, "Yes, but how will I know this Christ?" It is the same question John asked. Our baptism not only commissions us to be Christians, it commissions us to a ministry altogether, like John's, as well ... a ministry to witness, to point, to say Here is the Christ ... There is the Christ ... in this event, in that healing, in that judgment, in that moment of truth.

Civil rights leader Howard Thurman set the stage for us to know this Christ when he wrote of Advent and Christmas as seasons of hope. "When the song of the angels is stilled," he said. "When the star of the sky is gone. When the kings and princes are home. When the shepherds are back with their flocks. The work begins … To find the lost. To heal the broken. To feed the hungry. To rebuild the nations. To bring peace among people. To make music in the heart."

But it's no promise of a rose garden. There are "false Christs," Jesus said. There are those who in his name would justify war, who would substitute piety for service, who would put orthodoxy before sacrifice, who would make of the gospel a system or a philosophy rather than the Way of life, who would claim me and then turn their backs on me, who would elevate doctrine before faith.

When we make that vow in our baptism to seek and serve Christ, when we ask that question with John, Are you the one? we're soon, to take C S Lewis's great phrase, surprised by joy to discover that we are not only part of the answer, we are the answer. In this present time in the church … we cannot just be handed out the answer by some prelate, we must be the answer by our faith. For it is the Christ in us that will always recognize and know the Christ in others – and in all.

If you know someone who would like to subscribe to Lane Denson's almost-daily emails, they may do so by using the contact form at http://covpubs.org/contact/. Because of the volume of spam requests that we receive, please include in your message some information about yourself and why you would like to subscribe to OoN. Oon is also available as an RSS feed. Use this link: http://covpubs.org/oon/feed/atom

We're Being Studied

2007-12-03T20:19:00.000-06:00

We have recently received a request from Niyati Kataria, a graduate student at Penn State, to participate in a study of the blogs that are engaging the issues in the Episcopal Church. We have agreed to cooperate with her, and some of the TEM Board members have given her extensive phone interviews.

She will be studying the content of our blog essays and comments. At her request, we are also publishing this announcement to all of you.

We're not feeling like lab rats. And we have confidence that the student and the university are taking appropriate measures to assure confidentiality. But Ms. Kataria and Penn State require that we post the following on our blog during the period of her research.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dear blogger,

My name is Niyati Kataria and I’m conducting research for my graduate degree at The Pennsylvania State University. I would like to use data in the form of your blog posts (posted from August 2006 to date) on this blog site for my research. The results of my study may be published and if and when this happens, the following measures will be taken to ensure your confidentiality:

1. This blog site name will be disguised. The site will be called by a pseudonym such as 'blog1'.
2. The usernames you use on this site will not be used to refer to your posts in my paper. Instead I will assign pseudonyms such as 'blogger 1, blogger 2' etc. to refer to the identity of the person who posted the blog that is selected to be included in the paper.

Despite the above measures, if you would like me to not use any particular posts posted by you, please let me know which posts you would like me to withdraw from the study by emailing me at nuk133 at psu dot edu. [TEM Editor's note: If you have trouble parsing her e-mail address from that citation, click on the "Contact Us" button at the left, and we will forward your message to Ms. Kataria.] Please do so by 15th December 2007. Additionally, if you would be interested in the results of the analysis of this paper, I would be happy to send you a copy of the same if you request it by writing to me at the above mentioned email address.

Thanks and best regards,
Niyati Kataria

Mark Harris on Provisionality

2007-11-19T20:25:00.000-06:00

Mark Harris, a priest of our church and the blogger at Preludium, continues to write fine essays on the state of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. This weekend, he exceeded even my high expectations with his essay, "The Limits of Provisionality." As I said in the comments on his post, I found it one of the saddest and most hopeful essays I've read in the last few years.

He begins:

One of the marks of Anglicanism is the sense that we Anglicans hold those behaviors, actions, ceremonials, theologies, statements, etc, that are peculiarly Anglican as provisional against the day when God will inform us in deeper ways through Scripture, Reason and Tradition of the Truth in Jesus Christ. That is, we do not assume that we Anglicans are in any final way right. We do not claim to be the true church, but rather an expression of the true church.
One way to think of ourselves is to suppose we are in a large room, crowded with Anglicans with various recent experiences, and at the same time some sense of family. We find ourselves grounded in different perspectives on theology, used to different ceremonial, have differing sensibilities about social and moral concerns. Everyone at this gathering talks of what they know of the presence of the Lord in their lives, the missionary sense that they derive from such presence, and the lives they lead in the light of Christ. They eat and drink together a lot. Some will accuse us of being a party in progress.

He speaks poetically and passionately of the things that are best in our Big Fat Anglican Family.
He then speaks of the unrest that has been introduced into the Anglican Communion, at least since the consecration of Gene Robinson, or maybe dating back to the ordination of women:

We might expect that when some in the crowd become more and more uncomfortable with being provisional and begin to assert that their understandings are of the catholic faith and those of others in the crowd were not, the limits of provisionality would get tested. The more the push for a particular position as that of the "faith once delivered of the Saints," the more the community would begin to be nervous about their own provisionality. What had seemed a gracious effort to be a community of mutuality and loving kindness now would look like a lack of faith. Others than might begin to be more stringent as well, calling for obedience to the call that they had experienced and with which they were engaged.

He then comes to a very sad conclusion. He concludes that the generous provisionality that has characterized the Anglican Communion has died:

What are the limits to provisionality? Well, after all the conversation in the big room, with all the Anglicans from around the world and in our own back yards talking and learning from one another, when those who clamor for the definitive community that is the True Church wreck the provisional life, there is only this to do:
Turn off the lights and take out the trash.
Provisionality does not include being held hostage to some covenanted code, or someone's sense that they are the true protectors of the faith once delivered, or some high toned loyalty oath to the unvarnished scriptures. When the conversation is dominated by those who rant and who are no longer interested in gathering in a room big enough for common action among truly diverse peoples, it may be time to say, "The party's over. Come back tomorrow."
I think the party is over: Time to turn off the lights and take out the trash.

Then he continues with the hopeful part:

Several years ago I suggested that the Anglican Communion is an organic thing: it has a life and it came into self-conscious existence at some point and it will someday die. What we can hope for is that when the provisional community gathers again they will remember with thanksgiving the work that the Anglican Communion has done. I believe that.
I strongly believe that the Anglican Communion, as a fellowship of churches committed to being an expression of the Church, but not The Church, provisional and diverse in its understandings and experience of the faith and willing to work together as churches, will continue. I believe the Episcopal Church will be a part of that fellowship.
I also believe that when this community gathers, perhaps at Lambeth, but surely in a wide variety of gatherings great and small in which bread is broken and stories told, God's will for us all will be advanced and we will be made new for new days.
Others will go and make their own way.
But for this to happen it is time to declare that this party is over. This party has become spiritually disabling.
The only way to believe in the resurrection is to practice resurrection. […] When this gathering is over there is another ready to begin.
The Anglican sense of provisionality will find new form.
The Episcopal Church will live into that provisionality.
The gathering will gather again.

I suspect Mark Harris is right. We Episcopalians cleave to the incarnation and the resurrection. This experiment in tolerance (or "provisionality" in Mark's terms) cannot be over. Perhaps we need to let this current structure die, so that we can see what kind of resurrection we will experience after the schismatics do their worst and leave.

Do go over to Preludium and read Mark Harris's full essay.

Causes and Effects

2007-11-13T23:58:00.000-06:00

by Christopher L. Webber

I know people who wear green because they are blonde and think it’s flattering. I know others who wear green because they are Irish. The result is the same, but the cause is very different. When it comes to wearing green, it doesn’t much matter. When it comes to the divisions in the Anglican Communion, causes matter a lot.

The 1998 Lambeth Conference called on the churches of the Anglican Communion to enter into a listening process on the subject of sexuality. Recently I came across the report of the Church in Nigeria on that “Listening Process.” The report is lengthy and seems to me to show little evidence of listening to people with different understandings, but we would do well to listen to what Anglicans in Nigeria are really saying.

Here’s a key passage:

In Nigerian traditional culture homosexuality is seen as taboo. Homosexuals are thought of as threatening the divinely ordained order of the community. The Western idea of human rights is subservient to the service of the common good. The so called ‘right’ to homosexual orientation threatens the order of society because the continuation of the race is threatened by gay practice. Children are treasured as fruits of marriage and any union, as a gay union, that prevents the propagation of the community's growth is a personal shame to be openly censured.

Exactly! Traditionally, homosexual unions have always been condemned for that reason: because they threatened the ongoing life of the community. The Old Testament Hebrews were an endangered species, a small tribe in a hostile world. No wonder we find the condemnation of homosexual practice in Leviticus and elsewhere. Such actions threatened the community and could not be tolerated. Not surprisingly “Nigerian traditional culture” also saw homosexuality as “taboo.” It threatened “the continuation of the race” and “the propagation of the community’s growth” and so was shamed and censured.

Most Americans are unaware of the fact that the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, the official book still of the Church of England and the book common to all Anglicans in Africa until recent years, proclaims in the opening words of the marriage service that it is vital to consider “the causes for which Matrimony was ordained.” What are these? The 1662 Prayer Book tells us:

First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

There was some criticism of Archbishop Cranmer’s formula even when it was first published in 1549 on the grounds that the Book of Genesis tells us that God’s first purpose was the help and comfort the man and woman were to give each other, but human life was still insecure, death in childbirth and death in infancy were still common, and the priority was given to procreation. Infant life was still insecure in late 18th century America when the first American Prayer Book was published, but no statement of the purposes of marriage was included until 1979 when we were told that marriage is first for the “mutual joy” of husband and wife, second, for the help and comfort they provide for each other, and only third, and “when it is God's will,” for the procreation of children. What we have, then, is a clear case of changing priorities and cultural change would seem to be the likeliest cause.

The Church in Nigeria would undoubtedly argue that God’s word is one thing and cultural priorities are another. That is an important argument to consider. I would argue that what God’s word shows us is God’s concern for the welfare and survival of God’s people. That concern must be honored, but it might be differently expressed today. In contemporary America families of a dozen or more do not contribute to our welfare or survival. There is no urgent need to insist on "fruitful"sexual relationships. But it may be, nonetheless, that we will have a better chance of understanding each other if we pay attention to the role of culture in shaping our approach to such issues. And it does seem important to point out that when the Nigerian Church advances “Nigerian traditional culture” as having weight in this discussion, it is not basing its case entirely on the Bible.
_______________
About the Author: Christopher L. Webber has written for The Episcopal Majority before. See "A Certain Madness," "The Conscience of a Conservative," and "1984 in the Episcopal Church" (which includes background information about the author). He is the author of Re-Inventing Marriage, as well as a new supplement to the last title, called Same Sex Marriage and the Bible (available from his website).

Bishop Iker on Notice

2007-11-09T01:23:00.000-06:00

As she did with Bishop Duncan of Pittsburgh, Presiding Bishop Jeffferts Schori has now sent a warning letter to Bishop Iker of Fort Worth. She reminds him that his support of the constitutional and canonical changes coming before the diocese next weekend (November 16-17) would force her to take action to bring the diocese and its leadership into line with the mandates of the national Church. The full story is available at ENS.

The Presiding Bishop's letter makes clear the steps that may occur if Bishop Iker and the Diocese of Fort Worth proceed on their current course:

If these and related constitutional changes go forward, the Presiding Bishop could ask the Title IV Review Committee to consider whether the bishops who have proposed and supported them have abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.

If the Presiding Bishop presented materials to the Review Committee regarding potential abandonment by those bishops, and if the Committee agreed that abandonment had taken place, the bishops would have two months to recant. If they failed to do so, the matter would go to the full House of Bishops. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the House of Bishops.

If the House concurred, the Presiding Bishop could depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Members of congregations in the diocese remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.

An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.

A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

Appointed to the 2007-2009 Title IV Review Committee are Bishop Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina (president), Bishop Suffragan Bavi E. Rivera of Olympia, Bishop Suffragan David C. Jones of Virginia, Bishop C. Wallis Ohl Jr. of Northwest Texas, the Rev. Carolyn Kuhr of Montana, the Very Rev. Scott Kirby of Eau Claire, J.P. Causey Jr. of Virginia and Deborah J. Stokes of Southern Ohio.

Faithful Episcopalians in Fort Worth have been calling for support from the Episcopal Church. The Presiding Bishop's letter seems to make clear the course that will be followed.

A Certain Madness

2007-11-06T20:46:00.000-06:00

Editor's Note: Christopher Webber submitted this essay on Saturday, November 3, after the Diocese of Pittsburgh voted to disassociate from the Episcopal Church. Webber has written for The Episcopal Majority before. See The Conscience of a Conservative and 1984 in the Episcopal Church (which includes background information about the author).

by Christopher L. Webber

A certain madness seems at times to take hold of entire societies and turn them toward self-destruction. Such a passion seized the authorities in South Carolina in 1861 and led them to fire on Fort Sumter. Such an irrational mood took hold of Germany in 1932 and led them to follow blindly after Adolf Hitler. Such a delusion seems to have taken possession of a few dioceses and parishes of the Episcopal Church leading them to charge off into an unknown wilderness with only the negative purpose of not being part of a church in which homosexuals have equal rights.

Yet the divisions within this chaotic disarray are greater than those in the Episcopal Church itself. Do they agree on a Prayer Book, on the ordination of women, on the authority of bishops, on the nature of the Anglican Communion itself? In fact, they don’t. [See Note 1.] But never mind; they’ll figure out who they are later. It’s as if Ted Kennedy and Rush Limbaugh formed a political party dedicated to defeating Hillary Clinton. What would they do if they won? This is a recipe for disaster. [Editor's note: The Common Cause Partners have their website here.]

"Here I stand. I can do no other. I will neither compromise the Faith once delivered to the saints, nor will I abandon the sheep who elected me to protect them."

Thus spake Bishop Duncan after the Diocese of Pittsburgh voted almost 2-1 last week to cast itself adrift in uncharted waters. [See Note 2.] But where does he stand? Does he accept the faith once delivered to Archbishop Akinola of the Church in Nigeria where lay people have no voice in the selection of clergy leadership? Does he follow the Diocese of Sydney, Australia, in yearning for lay administration of the sacraments and a total disregard for diocesan boundaries? Does he see the ordination of women as an optional extra?

And in this new thing being created, will parishes and dioceses be permitted to come and go as various issues arise and become divisive? With new American bishops being created on impulse by bishops from various dioceses in Africa, Asia, and South America, each apparently eager to claim a share of the American pie, is there any possibility of diocesan lines or will we have a half dozen parishes in the same city with allegiance to half a dozen different foreign dioceses?

Who now will define “the faith once delivered to the saints?” Will homophobia be written into their creed, their articles of incorporation, their Prayer Book? Will tradition and reason – reason especially – be disavowed as sources of authority?

When you stand at the top of the ski run and realize that you don’t know how to ski, you can still turn back. But it takes a greater humility and sense of history than is currently at work for a leader to take his troops to the edge of the precipice and then suggest an alternative. Better to jump and die even if it turns out there’s no safety net down there than to be embarrassed in public.

Bishop Duncan may see himself as Martin Luther, but from this perspective he looks a lot more like one of those false messiahs of the past who led their sheep into the wilderness and ultimate disaster in pursuit of a mad vision of righteousness.

NOTES:

Note 1: In fact, the Diocese of Pittsburgh ordains women, but two other leading dissident dioceses (San Joaquin and Fort Worth) see that as apostasy. Likewise, some of the dissidents are content with the 1979 Book of Common Prayer while others see it as a work of the devil.

Note 2: The lay vote was 118-58, clergy voted 109-24 for changes to the Constitution of the Diocese (that would have to be voted again next year to take effect) that would essentially eliminate all references to the diocese's connection with the Episcopal Church and leave the Diocese free to pursue connection with some other Anglican entity.

On the IRD

2007-11-06T19:25:00.000-06:00

From Talk2Action:

The Episcopal Church is getting tough with an openly schismatic bishop who has been one of the Akinola Anglicans cheered and supported by the neoconservative Institute on Religion and Democracy. Similarly, local breakaway parishes are discovering that they can leave the church, but they can't take it with them. (For those who are not familiar, Nigerian Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola is a rightwing, vehemently antigay prelate with whom a number of renegade American Episcopal churches are affiliating.)

The Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts Schori warned Pittsburgh Bishop Robert W. Duncan Jr. that he would face civil suits and possible expulsion as bishop if a proposed resolution enabling the diocese to leave the denomination passed during a diocesan convention the other day. But he and the Anglican confederates voted to secede anyway.

On Pittsburgh

2007-11-02T15:03:00.000-05:00

Episcopal Café has posted a fine summary of the decisions facing the Diocese of Pittsburgh, whose convention begins today, including this:

The Convention will vote on the first reading of constitutional changes that would attempt to separate the Diocese from the Episcopal Church, becoming its own free-standing entity, allow the Diocese to pick the Primate of their choice from around the Anglican Communion, and welcome into membership congregations that are not within the geographical boundaries of the Diocese of Pittsburgh.

They also have this poignant snippet from the JohnstownTribune-Democrat:

“It is like my parents are getting divorced,” said Cindy Leap, parishioner at St. Mark’s Episcopalian [sic] Church in Johnstown. “I have to pick whether to go with my mommy or daddy.”

Pray for the Church.

Stemming the Tide

2007-11-01T21:12:00.000-05:00

Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori has warned Episcopal bishops that there will be consequences if they seek to lead their dioceses out of the Episcopal Church, while imploring them to remain within the church and seek reconciliation.

A press release issued yesterday from the Episcopal News Service included the text of a letter that the Presiding Bishop has sent to Bishop Robert Duncan (Pittsburgh). Bishop Duncan is also the moderator of the Anglican Communion Network and the Common Cause Partnership, both of which seem to be seeking to establish an Anglican presence in the U.S. outside the Episcopal Church. (Several of the leaders were also active in the '90s to launch a similar effort under the "Episcopal Synod of America.") Bishop Duncan also attended the consecration of bishops in Kenya and Uganda to serve in the U.S. He has advocated for the adoption of diocesan resolutions that would supposedly sever the relationship between the Diocese of Pittsburgh and the Episcopal Church.

The Presiding Bishop wrote to Bishop Duncan:

There have been numerous public references in recent weeks regarding resolutions to be introduced at your forthcoming diocesan convention. Those resolutions, if adopted, would amend several of your diocesan canons and begin the process of amending one or more provisions of your diocesan Constitution. I have reviewed a number of these proposed resolutions, and it is evident to me that they would violate the Constitutional requirement that the Diocese conform to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. It is apparent from your pre-convention report that you endorse these proposed changes. I am also aware of other of your statements and actions in recent months that demonstrate an intention to lead your diocese into a position that would purportedly permit it to depart from The Episcopal Church. All these efforts, in my view, display a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between The Episcopal Church and its dioceses. Our Constitution explicitly provides that a diocese must accede to the Constitution and Canons of the Church.
I call upon you to recede from this direction and to lead your diocese on a new course that recognizes the interdependent and hierarchical relationship between the national Church and its dioceses and parishes. That relationship is at the heart of our mission, as expressed in our polity. Specifically, I sincerely hope that you will change your position and urge your diocese at its forthcoming convention not to adopt the resolutions that you have until now supported.
If your course does not change, I shall regrettably be compelled to see that appropriate canonical steps are promptly taken to consider whether you have abandoned the Communion of this Church -- by actions and substantive statements, however they may be phrased -- and whether you have committed canonical offences that warrant disciplinary action.
It grieves me that any bishop of this Church would seek to lead any of its members out of it. I would remind you of my open offer of an Episcopal Visitor if you wish to receive pastoral care from another bishop. I continue to pray for reconciliation of this situation, and I remain
Your servant in Christ,
Katharine Jefferts Schori

The ENS story makes clear that other bishops will soon receive similar letters. The Diocese of Pittsburgh's convention is November 2-3, Fort Worth's convention is November 14-15, and the Diocese of San Joaquin meets December 7-8. Those who follow the Anglican blogosphere suspect that similar letters are going to Bishops Iker and Schofield, both of whom are supporting legislation similar to +Duncan's.

The ENS story also spelled out the thinking of the Church leadership, as reported to the Executive Council last week. Father Jake described it as offering "Some Answers Regarding Bishops Leaving the Episcopal Church." Faithful Episcopalians in schismatic parishes and dioceses would do well to read the ENS story. The press release outlines a process whereby schismatic bishops may be deposed and under which authentic Episcopal dioceses would be reconstituted. It appears that the Episcopal Church leadership is indeed making plans to support faithful Episcopalians, if the diocesan leaders seek to leave the Episcopal Church.

Thoughts on the Howe-Williams Exchange

2007-10-26T21:21:00.000-05:00

by the Rev. Dr. George C. Bedell

John Howe, Bishop of Central Florida, recently wrote a letter to Archbishop Rowan Williams, requesting the Archbishop to “clearly differentiate between those Bishops and Dioceses that are Windsor-compliant and those that are not.” [Editor's Note: Some background materials and citations are provided here.]

In response, the Archbishop said [as quoted here] that he could say only two things:

“The first is that I have committed myself very clearly to awaiting the views of the Primates before making any statement purporting to settle the question of The Episcopal Church’s status, and I cannot easily short circuit that procedure.”

He goes on to say: “The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.”

Until Rowan Williams (and those who might agree with him) come to terms with the incontrovertible fact that what he calls “ the organ of union” for the American church is our General Convention, we’re going to get nowhere in solving our worldwide dilemma together.

I was also struck by the fact that the Archbishop goes on to say: “Those who are rushing into separatist solutions are . . . treating the provincial structure of The Episcopal Church as if were the most important thing – which is why I continue to hope and pray for the strengthening of the bonds of mutual support among those Episcopal Church Bishops who want to be clearly loyal to Windsor.”

Amazing! He just doesn’t get it, does he? Those who are rushing into “separatist solutions” in the United States are the very ones who want to ignore the primacy of the General Convention altogether, because, among other things, they say its decision is out of sync with some distorted and intellectually suffocating reading of Scripture.

Moreover, I’d like to ask why the Windsor Report becomes the measure of faithfulness. I readily admit that a lot of my friends think the Windsor Report was wonderful when it was issued and continue to think so. I, by contrast, found it one of the most condescending and patronizing documents I’d read in a long time and found it wanting in several important ways.

The real issue here – one that Howe and Williams don’t even address – is how the church is going to find a way fully to include lesbians and gays in the life of the Church. I gather Howe has already made up his mind on the issue, but, much to everyone’s consternation, the Archbishop, who at one time apparently had a progressive attitude about the question, seems to want to find a way not to offend anyone. One longs for him to take a stand, and not worry about the consequences.

I think of Our Lord’s attitude toward the outcasts of his day. One would hope and pray that the leaders of His Church would do the same thing now, though I hate to think that anyone in her or his right mind would call gays and lesbians “outcasts.” Unfortunately, that’s what some seem to be saying: “Oh, we’ll stand up for your legal rights, and we’d like for you to come to church, but don’t even think about marrying your partner or seeking holy orders.”

I wish the Archbishop would climb down out of the clouds or wherever he is and lead the Anglican Communion to take seriously the admonition to love others as we love ourselves, no strings attached.

--------
About the Author: George Bedell is an ordained priest of the Episcopal Church and a member of the Board of Directors of The Episcopal Majority. In his early career, the Rev. Dr. Bedell served parishes in the Diocese of Florida, then he joined the faculty of the Department of Religion at the Florida State University in Tallahassee. Before his retirement, he served as Director of the University Press of Florida and in several positions on the staff of the Florida Board of Regents, most recently as Vice Chancellor for Administration. He is the author of Kierkegaard and Faulkner: Modalities of Existence (Baton Rouge: LSU Press, 1972), co-author of Religion in America (New York: Macmillan, 1975 & 1982), along with many articles. He earned a B.A. in English with honors at the University of the South (Sewanee), an M.Div. at Virginia Theological Seminary, an M.A. in English at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and a Ph.D. in Religion at Duke University. He is married to Elizabeth Reed Bedell, and they have three sons. They now live and worship in Gainesville, in the Diocese of Florida.

What About Canterbury?

2007-10-26T19:56:00.000-05:00

by Lisa Fox

Much has been said in the blogosphere about the missives between Rowan Williams (Archbishop of Canterbury) and John Howe (Bishop of Central Florida) over the past week. Episcopal News Service published a summary here of the Archbishop's initial letter and his clarification. Thinking Anglicans published the background here, then offered a summary of reactions here, here, and here . The good folks at the Episcopal Café also did a fine job with the Archbishop's initial message and his "clarification," as did Mark Harris in his essay, "The Archbishop Makes a Mess," andFather Jake in his "More Confusion from Canterbury."

In his statements, the Archbishop seems to state that the fundamental connection to the Anglican Communion is through bishops – not through the national/provincial churches of the Communion. He wrote to the embattled Bishop Howe:

… any Diocese compliant with Windsor remains clearly in communion with Canterbury and the mainstream of the Communion, whatever may be the longer-term result for others in The Episcopal Church. The organ of union with the wider Church is the Bishop and the Diocese rather than the Provincial structure as such.

Also in that letter, Archbishop Williams repeats the "primacy" of the diocese as the primary unit, while also discouraging the dissidents in "Windsor-compliant" dioceses:

I should feel a great deal happier, I must say, if those who are most eloquent for a traditionalist view in the United States showed a fuller understanding of the need to regard the Bishop and the Diocese as the primary locus of ecclesial identity rather than the abstract reality of the ‘national church’.

The Archbishop made a similar statement from New Orleans, which I noted here.

His clarification did little to clarify, as Father Andrew Gerns piquantly observed.

I must confess, I do not understand what the Archbishop of Canterbury is trying to say, much less why he responded so swiftly to the Bishop of Central Florida. Trustworthy, published reports say that the Archbishop of Canterbury responded to the Bishop of Central Florida in 12 hours. By contrast, the Archbishop of Canterbury refused to attend the 2006 General Convention of the Episcopal Church, and it took years – literally years – for our House of Bishops to persuade him to meet with them.

I am but a lowly Episcopal layperson. But I read the news every week of the Archbishop circling the globe to meet with this or that body within or very far outside the Anglican Communion. I do not understand why he would shun the Episcopal Church, while meeting with other, wildly diverse churches.

I have some sense of what the Archbishop of Canterbury is doing, and of the weakness he is exercising in his office. As the House of Bishops meeting ended, I received a message from Douglas Theuner, the retired Bishop of New Hampshire, who wrote in part:

Despite the long-awaited visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the hopes of many, if not all, the bishops present that he might help to show us a new way forward (I had specifically and publicly asked him for that on Thursday morning but my request, like most others, went unanswered), he offered nothing other than to encourage us to seek "common discernment"; something which most of us feel we have been trying to do since long before he became Archbishop of Canterbury.

To top ("bottom") that off, on Friday morning he left without even giving us his blessing! Now, some might say, "So what? What's the big deal?" But that is to misunderstand the power of Anglican iconography. That's what we do, we bishops. We bless. No matter how much time and energy we put into teaching, preaching, administration or anything else, what we do primarily is bless God's people in God's Name. Isn't that what the current "crisis" in the Anglican Communion is all about?

Bishop Theuner's reflections make me wonder how Archbishop Williams understands his role as a bishop – much less as the archbishop and "first among equals."

To me, it appears that the Archbishop of Canterbury has already written off the Episcopal Church. It appears that he attended the House of Bishops meeting as a passive presence, not as one who was actively engaged in seeking a solution or in the vaunted role of reconciliation of which he speaks.

Is the Archbishop of Canterbury actually, actively working for reconciliation in the Anglican Communion? Has he given up? Does he hope the Episcopal Church remains within the Communion, or is he with those who want to boot us out? For the life of me, I cannot tell.

About the Author: Lisa Fox, webmaster and Board member of The Episcopal Majority, is a layperson, vestry member, crucifer, and Eucharistic Minister at Grace Episcopal Church in Jefferson City, Missouri.

A Sign

2007-10-26T07:17:00.000-05:00

by the Rev. Thomas B. Woodward

A couple of weeks ago, while attending Trinity Episcopal Church in Meredith, New Hampshire, with my brother, Pete, a man sitting a couple of pews in front of us went to the front of the small church to present the week’s “Ministry Minute.” He said:

In nearly every community in the United States there is the same sign. The sign is significant in its simplicity and in its message. What it says is “The Episcopal Church Welcomes You.” That is what it says wherever you find it, in New Hampshire, California or Texas.

There are two words that are conspicuously absent from the sign. The two words are "except" and "unless." You will not find either of those words on the front or on the back of the sign or even in tiny fine print. You will not find, after the words "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You" the words "unless you interpret the Bible differently than we do" or "except if you are a gay or lesbian person who has been elected bishop." The sign says simply and in a way God intends us all to understand, "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You – No Exceptions, No Unless."

Ron Kiesel, who spoke those words with such simplicity and such power in this rural New England parish, had left the church for nearly two years over being upset by the consecration of a partnered gay man as his bishop. In the coffee hour after the service he told me, “One morning I woke up and heard God’s voice: ‘Who are you to judge that man?’ That was all. And that was all I needed. Now I am back, and Gene Robinson is my bishop, and I am a very, very happy Episcopalian.”

Anglican Covenant?

2007-10-23T21:39:00.000-05:00

Much has been said about the move for the Anglican Communion to adopt a "covenant."

In a sermon this weekend, Archbishop Ndungane (of the Anglican Church of Southern Africa) condemned the move for an Anglican covenant as "a mechanism for exclusion." Read his entire sermon here.

Media Misunderstandings

2007-10-22T19:34:00.000-05:00

Media Frame Distorts Anglican-Episcopal Dispute
by Lezley McDouall

There's a delicious irony in the historically hide-bound, elite Episcopalians suddenly becoming known for taking a radical stance on any issue whatsoever. How many Episcopalians does it take to change a light bulb? The answer is, and always has been, a blank look and a wary question, "Change?" And yet, every time I see Episcopalians in the news these days, we are being cast as wild-eyed liberals.

How did America's painstakingly unadventurous Church of the Gentry suddenly become a free-for-all GLBT haven? When did this miraculous transformation occur? To be quite honest, it didn't. Episcopalians haven’t actually changed any more than donkeys have flown. I might personally long for the day that my parish is known throughout the land for its integration and inclusiveness, but that day is still a shining speck on the horizon. However the news media may spin it, changes in the Episcopal Church take place more slowly than glaciers advance.

Still, the general misconception of what's going on with the Anglicans is perfectly understandable. Heaven knows, if I were a journalist reporting on this brouhaha, it would be easy to make the same category errors as every article I've read. Because, let's face it, phrases like "imminent schism" and "practicing homosexual" will always sell more papers than lead balloons like "church polity" and "canon law."

So, an ambitious reporter coveting a by-line naturally frames the story as a pitched battle between "conservative Bible-adherent traditionalists" and "left-leaning gay-friendly liberals." That frame allows one to use a dichotomy that is already familiar to American readers, and it spares everyone the tedium of explanations that can make even Episcopalian eyes glaze over. The problem is that, while this is the easy, sexy, profitable way, it is not the accurate, fair, or truthful way.

The breathless coverage doesn't make clear that the Episcopal Church has been deliberating about issues of sexuality at diocesan, provincial, and national levels for well over twenty years now. When I say the pace of change is glacial, I'm not joking. It requires true grit, persistence, a super-majority, and the Holy Ghost to pass any change whatsoever.

The changes being portrayed as sudden are actually the end result of a dreadfully deliberate process undertaken by the least wild-eyed members of any parish. By the time the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson was consecrated as bishop of the diocese of New Hampshire, the mind of the national church had been mulling over the idea of such an event for decades.

Potentially dry digression into Episcopal Church structure and tradition overcome, an accurate article on the brouhaha could quickly regain effervescence, highlighting the delicious irony of supposedly "radical" Episcopalians standing firmly on the bedrock of canon law and traditional Anglican ecclesiastical structure. Irony might be piled upon irony by examining the novelties being promulgated by those who cast themselves as "orthodox traditionalists."

Far from inventive, the so-called "liberals" are digging in their heels to defend the historical prerogative of every Episcopal diocese to elect its own bishops without coercive interference from other quarters. Many of these parishioners, to be honest, aren't as gay-friendly as our GLBT brethren and sistren would wish, but they know in their hearts that once the bishops of other dioceses begin meddling in their prayerful deliberations concerning leadership, a vital aspect of Episcopalian identity has been corrupted.

Such meddling goes against what, for your truly traditional Episcopalian, is as foundational as the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps it is even more foundational, for the Church is a "Body" in a way a nation is not and constitutionally cannot be. The seemly separation of Church and State rightly prevents legislators from making theological statements about the nature of what "Unum" the "Pluribus" become in America, but the Body of Christ is an identity that goes deeper, for many, than nationality. Meddling with denominational ecclesiology is meddling with our understanding of our very selves.

The "orthodox" innovators only get away with calling themselves "traditionalists" because most folks don't know what makes Anglicans Anglican. Church polity discussions may cure insomnia, but there is as much reason that Anglicans are not Baptists as vice versa. Different denominations have different enough theologies of sacrament, salvation, and church to create different denominations. Reporters thus far have pretended these important differences don't exist, rather than making them clear. This insults both the reader and those misrepresented.

It's truly galling to watch the innovators call themselves the orthodox and get away with it because reporters can't be bothered to learn what makes Episcopalians different from Lutherans or Roman Catholics. If the differences were trivial, or easily ignored, the Body of Christ would be a unitary behemoth (for better or for worse).

Three glaring novelties might be discussed in a well-researched article. First, neo-fundamentalists make a mockery of the "three-legged stool" every Episcopalian learns about in Sunday School, insisting that their interpretation of Scripture takes primacy over both ecclesial Tradition and Reason. In Anglicanism, these three fundamental resources are meant to balance one another; we have not, historically, been the sola scriptura crowd.

Secondly, the ostensibly "orthodox" schismatics discard the cherished independence of national churches in the Anglican Communion and assert that a gathering of bishops from across the Communion may dictate church policy to one church within the Communion. If the "orthodox" folks want a foreign bishop to have sovereignty over their spiritual lives, they might easily join another, older church I could name.

Instead, the so-called "traditionalists" threw a third tradition out the window when they ordained history's first bishops without any geographical boundaries. These go traipsing about, ministering to the inclusion-challenged wherever they find them, and preaching a gospel of Biblically-mandated intolerance.

I am a peace-loving person, cautioned by my rector to avoid inflaming an already tense situation, so I will say little about the slippery nature of biblical inerrancy. I will say this: even the Amish make some exceptions. The neo-fundamentalist Anglicans leaning so hard upon selected passages of the Epistles display no angst about the epidemic flouting of the letter of certain other passages of Scripture.

Where is their sustained outrage and political pressure to end usury, concentrated wealth, or the exploitation and mistreatment of foreign workers? If they want to rely solely on scripture for an argument, I dare any rational adult, having read all four Gospels, to make a case that the Savior portrayed there ever takes the side of the proudly pure against a social outcast.

Episcopalians love tradition, and we can be pretty stubborn when someone messes with the way we've always done things. If keeping our Church traditions makes us gay-friendly, I say, so be it.

About the Author: Lezley McDouall is a graduate of Church Divinity School of the Pacific, with graduate degrees in Church History and Ministry from the Graduate Theological Union and Oxford University. She is a licensed lay preacher, Christian Formation teacher, and chorister at St. Luke’s Episcopal Church in Durham, North Carolina. Lezley’s husband, Ken, works at the Chapel Hill Public Library. Her step-son, Alex, is active in two choirs and in Habitat for Humanity. The McDoualls have three cats who patiently teach them the art of living well.

The Gospel of Both/And, Not Either/Or

2007-10-16T23:28:00.000-05:00

by the Rev. Matthew Dutton-Gillett

[Editor's Note: Matthew Dutton-Gillett has previously written for The Episcopal Majority here and here. This essay was accepted for publication on October 11.]

The other day, I heard an interview with an Episcopalian who was of draft age during World War II. He told some of his story about registering as a conscientious objector. He said that as he thought about Jesus, he simply could not imagine Jesus wearing the uniform of an American soldier – or of any soldier, for that matter – and picking up a gun and killing other people. Being unable to conceive of Jesus fulfilling this kind of role, this man could not conceive of himself fulfilling such a role. And so he registered as a conscientious objector, and undertook an alternative form of service – a form of service more in keeping with his understanding of Jesus and of the Gospel that Jesus proclaimed.

One of the things that most struck me about this man’s story was how much courage it must have taken to choose that particular path. World War II was probably the last unambiguous war in which the United States was involved. As Hitler’s forces overran Europe and beyond, and as the world began to learn the horrific truth of the Holocaust, the evil that Hitler represented became more and more clear. Imagine the kind of personal courage and conviction it must have taken to decline to join that fight, to refuse to take up arms even against such manifest evil. It was not a popular choice. Many people of that time, if not most, did not understand conscientious objection. It seemed unpatriotic, unmanly. The government even produced propaganda films that cast conscientious objectors in a negative light. No matter what your feelings about making such a choice, you have to admire the principled courage required to make it.

I think that present-day Episcopalians could learn something from this man’s example. What is at stake for our church today is nothing compared to what was at stake then, but the principle exemplified by this Episcopalian is instructive. When faced with a moral dilemma, he tried to imagine how Jesus would respond in the same situation. Such an imaginative undertaking is, in reality, a creative application of the Gospel, for it requires one to integrate everything one knows about Jesus from Scripture, and seek to discern a way forward. Such an act of discernment surely involves not only the application of Scripture, but also an openness to the movement of the Holy Spirit in one’s life.

What would happen in our church, in our communion, if we were to engage in a similar act of discernment? When I do so, I find myself being drawn into a painful tension that cannot really be resolved. It is, I think, a place very close to the place where the bishops chose to stand in the statement they issued at the end of their New Orleans meeting.

The bishops’ statement, if examined carefully, seems to be attempting to do two things that are almost impossible to do at the same time. On the one hand, the bishops are attempting to preserve some kind of unity within the Anglican Communion and the Episcopal Church. In their clarification of B033 and in the position they took with respect to the blessing of same-sex unions, the bishops are attempting to say, “Let’s not walk away from each other just yet.” On the other hand, the bishops are also attempting to take a just stand with respect to gay and lesbian people, and to insist that their dignity as human beings and baptized Christians be respected. And this is where that place of painful tension is found: in the attempt to value unity and relationship while at the same time valuing and insisting on justice and dignity toward a marginalized people.

This tension is, I think, precisely the tension of the Gospel, the tension in which Jesus himself lived and from which he carried out his ministry. As we look at the teaching of Jesus, it is clear that he refuses to abandon relationships for the sake of justice, nor does he abandon justice for the sake of relationship. He will, it is true, allow people to walk away from him if they choose to do so. But he never chooses to walk away from anyone. He certainly challenges people, and is even directly and indirectly critical of people about the choices they make. But he does not refuse to be in relationship with them or to sit at their table.

In Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus makes clear that those whom we define as our “enemies” are not, on the basis of that definition, to be excluded from our sphere of concern. Indeed, he tells us that we are to love our enemies and pray for those who hate us. When we are stung, we are to turn the other cheek. When someone seeks to take something from us at law, we are to give them even more than they are asking for. There is no conceivable situation in the teaching of Jesus in which we are permitted to classify anyone as expendable.

At the same time, Jesus spends much of his life among those who were the marginalized and outcast of his time. In that same Sermon on the Mount, he raises the bar on divorce in part to emphasize the sacredness of the married relationship but also – and perhaps primarily – to defend women against the unjust whims of their husbands. He goes among lepers, he talks with Samaritans, he heals Gentiles, he respects the dignity of children and reaches out to the poor and the sinful. By word and action, he makes it clear that these marginalized people are also to be included in our sphere of concern, and perhaps even are to be the primary focus of our God-given mission. And part of that concern is about justice.

We all know what happened to Jesus as a result of living in this tension. Living in this tension is a crucifying place to stand. It requires something to die in each of us. But it is also the path that leads to a larger and more abundant life.

If Anglicanism falls apart, with “conservatives” going their way and “liberals” going their way, the world will not be surprised. Because that is exactly what human beings do and have done over and over again throughout history. They choose sides, they throw rocks at their enemies and they ultimately split up – or else destroy one party to the conflict. Most of the world will not see the break up of the Anglican Communion as a great heroic defense of Truth. They will see it as a failure even among Christian people to live any better with each other than the rest of humanity. The falling apart of the Anglican Communion will not be an evangelistic triumph for the True Faith. It will be a conspicuous example of the inability of the followers of Jesus to actually follow him.

It seems that the further we proceed down this pot-holed, twisting road, the more we have begun to think of our situation as a choice between unity and justice, between orthodoxy and heresy. But a close reading of the gospels reveals quite clearly that these are false choices. Jesus does not ask us to make these choices. The only choice Jesus asks us to make is this: will we take up our cross and follow him, or will we not? And if we choose to take up our cross, then we are choosing to live in the painful, seemingly impossible place where there is no “either/or,” but rather “both/and.” And, surprisingly, we are also choosing to live in a place where there is no orthodoxy or heresy, but only faithfulness.

Let none of us forget that God makes the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust, on both the righteous and the unrighteous. And, simply invoking the name of Jesus and crying out “Lord, Lord” will not guarantee that our faithfulness is recognizable to the Christ.

The bishops are asking for space to be made in which we might come to terms with both unity and justice. And that reflects both the courage and call of the Gospel. What would Jesus do? Let us answer very carefully.

The Conscience of a Conservative

2007-10-16T22:41:00.000-05:00

by Christopher L. Webber

[Editor's Note: This essay was accepted for submission on October 6. Biographical information about the author is available here, where we published his earlier essay.]

Traditional Anglican Catholicism is hardly a “liberal” system. We shape our pattern of worship by a centuries old Prayer Book and, when questioned about our faith, we refer the questioner to fourth- and fifth-century creeds. How then have I, who bristles at the word “Protestant,” come to be identified with those called “liberals” in the current Anglican imbroglio?

I think I have found some answers in a recent essay (October 5) by New York Times columnist David Brooks.

Brooks makes a distinction between “creedal” and “temperamental” conservatism and notes that the conservatism articulated by Edmund Burke, the 18th-century father of modern conservatism, was not an ideology or creed, but rather “a reverence for tradition, a suspicion of radical change.”

But conservatism in America, Brooks writes, has become creedal. Worse yet, in recent years, “conservative ideologies have been magnified” while “the temperamental conservatism of Burke has been abandoned.” Thus the present administration has attempted to create an instant democracy in the Middle East although Burke had cautioned that “pleasing commencements” often have “lamentable conclusions.”

More significant for Anglicans is the Burkean analysis of society as an organism within which “custom, tradition and habit” are the prime movers. The traditional catholic understanding of the church is exactly that: an organism in which custom and tradition are to be valued rather than rapid change and doctrinal statements. “Temperamental conservatives,” Brooks writes, “are suspicious of the idea of settling issues on the basis of abstract truth.”

This makes very good sense to me. Those who style themselves “traditionalists” in the Anglican Communion would seem to be not temperamental conservatives but Creedalists who seek to define the church by new creedal statements that are raised up above the old. Suddenly also new “instruments of unity” have appeared although no province of the Anglican Communion has either officially adopted them nor empowered the Lambeth Conference, not a legislative body, to create them.

Brooks suggests that many Americans care more about order and prudence than “transformational leadership.” Amen to that! So do many Episcopalians. Hard cases, it has often been noted, make bad law. So, too, the issue of sexuality is not as likely to be resolved by radical changes in the structure of Anglicanism as by a patient listening process such as the last Lambeth Conference called for and the Episcopal House of Bishops has repeatedly requested.

As a “temperamental conservative,” I am offended by the suggestion that I am some sort of “liberal,” wildly trashing the Anglican tradition and intent on blazing new paths to the future. My appeal is, and has always been, for order and prudence and that “comprehension for the sake of truth” that Richard Hooker in the 16th century suggested was the essence of the Anglican way.

Author's Postscript: Readers may also wish to consult J. Robert Wright's essay on the proposed Anglican covenant in the latest issue of The Anglican. He says he thinks a covenant is a good idea but the questions he raises about the proposed one raise some fundamental issues that need to be pondered. Wright's essay is in the April 2007 edition of The Anglican, Vol. 36, No. 2.

Hiatus

2007-10-16T22:39:00.000-05:00

Postings to this site have been delayed due to some difficulties for the blogmaster. Over the next day or two, we will publish the essays that have been received and accepted since October 5. We apologize for the delay.

1984 in the Episcopal Church

2007-09-28T19:05:00.000-05:00

by Christopher L. Webber

Note: This essay was submitted to The Episcopal Majority on September 26. In the intervening days, more events have occurred, about which we will comment. Meanwhile, we are pleased to offer Chris Webber's essay.

George Orwell’s famous book, 1984, is the most familiar statement of the way in which words can be made to say whatever we want them to say. Words can be bent and twisted until they say the opposite of what they once stood for. The Cold War gave us “Democratic People’s Republics” in which there was no democracy and the people had no public voice. William Safire noted recently that we can’t call our soldiers “freedom fighters” because others have preempted the phrase.

Last night on the news there was a story about the Episcopal Church and the division between what the commentator called the “traditionalists” and the “liberals. To give us pictures to go with the words, we were shown “traditionalists” holding up their hands as they sang and swayed to a rock band on a stage at the front of the church. “Traditionalist”? Who’s making up definitions?

Then we were shown “liberals” and they were kneeling quietly in their pews while a vested priest at the altar led a celebration of the Eucharist. It looked very much the way churches looked when I was growing up – which is longer ago than many of these “traditionalists” remember!

“Tradition,” as Alice in Wonderland might have said, “is what I say it is.”

The tradition of the Episcopal Church is to pray from the Book of Common Prayer and welcome all who are drawn to that pattern of worship. Queen Elizabeth I famously said, “I will not make windows into men’s souls.” In other words: "If you join with me in the standard pattern of prayer, I won’t inquire too closely into what you believe." Words can deceive us; what matters is unity in worship.

But the new "traditionalists" of the Episcopal Church have changed the definitions. Now division, not inclusion, is the agenda. Now you have to agree with their interpretation of the Bible or they will refuse to join you in worship. Once Anglicans looked to Scripture, tradition, and reason for their authority. Now we are asked to respond to code words and to let emotion overcome reason.

The tragedy is that so many are being swept along in this emotional, divisive, destructive redefining of Anglicanism into something without any recognizable tradition. Something that has never before been the Anglican way is being raised up into a new religion and called “traditional.”

About the Author: The Rev. Christopher L. Webber is a graduate of Princeton and the General Theological Seminary where he earned two degrees and was awarded an honorary doctorate. He is the author of a number of books including The Vestry Handbook, Welcome to the Episcopal Church, Beyond Beowulf (the first-ever sequel to the first English saga), and the recently re-issued Re-Inventing Marriage, as well as a new supplement to the last title, called Same Sex Marriage and the Bible (available from his website).

In a ministry of fifty years and counting, Fr. Webber has served parishes in inner city, suburban, rural, and overseas communities. He is currently serving as a supply priest on the Diocese of Connecticut. He has been married to the same wife for slightly less than fifty years and is the father of four children and grandfather of four.

Keep Your Eye on the Prize

2007-09-27T18:10:00.000-05:00

by the Very Reverend G. Thomas Luck

I attended seminary in 1978-1981. Thus, I was in seminary when the 1979 General Convention passed a resolution stating no persons having sexual relations outside of marriage between a man and a woman should be ordained to any order in our church. This resolution was largely seen as a reaction to Paul Moore's ordination of Ellen Barrett, a lesbian, to the priesthood in 1977. It sent shock waves through my seminary, Nashotah House, and not just among the gay or lesbian students [And yes there were both there in those days.] One student, a gay man who I thought had great promise as a priest, decided that he needed to leave seminary and cease being in the ordination process. One of the results of that resolution was that a new organization called Integrity, and a charismatic leader named Louie Crew, became emboldened. I heard Louie preach at St. Francis House in Madison, Wisconsin in that time frame and he was compelling.

What if instead, Louie Crew and many others had simply left the Episcopal Church? What if Gene Robinson, when he clearly did discern that he is a gay man, had decided to leave? On one hand our Church would have deserved it. But thanks be to God they stayed and taught and talked and built relationships, in what must have surely have seemed like a frustratingly endless basic tutorial on human sexuality and the Bible.

In 2003 the General Convention gave its consent for Gene Robinson's election to be a bishop. That was 24 years after passing a resolution saying he shouldn't even be a priest. In the lives of people living in history, 24 years is a long time, a generation. In the scope of Christianity, 24 years is nothing, not even the blink of an eye. Even in the history of the Episcopal Church, it is not that long a period of time. When Gene's election was confirmed we thought that in many ways that the struggle was over, not completely, but much closer.

But then we were reminded that not only are we not a congregational or presbyterian church, we are not merely a national church. We are an episcopal church, and bishops by definition are symbols and even means of unity across the globe. When first Barbara Harris and then other women were ordained to the episcopate we faced the global challenge that people, serving in an order one of whose purposes is unity within the church, would not be received by many within our Communion. We entered a period of "impaired Communion" with many of our dioceses throughout the Anglican Communion. Yet in that case, we could look to resolutions from prior Lambeth Conferences which stated that there were no theological barriers to women being ordained.

When a gay man was elected a bishop in our church, we thought this would be similar, but we were wrong.

We were reminded that – legally and constitutionally – we are part of the Anglican Communion. We were reminded that unlike the ordination of women, Lambeth had said "no" to this move. We have repeatedly been told, and I believe the bishops heard again, that to continue down this path would mean that we have decided to leave the Anglican Communion.

For us to ordain to the episcopate people whose "manner of life" causes a problem for the rest of the Communion [and since I am divorced I may be included in that group] until there is a change in the consensus of the Anglican Communion is to, in effect, leave the Communion. For us to authorize rites for blessing same-sex relationships [something I have advocated for twenty years] until there is a change in the consensus of the Anglican Communion is to, in effect, leave the Communion. My prayer, my hope, and the thing I work for, among others, is the full participation of gay and lesbian people everywhere, and especially in Christ's One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, including the Anglican Communion.

I think that the best thing in the long run is to refrain from acting, but to be a powerful and strong voice for advocacy, as Integrity has been within the Episcopal Church. We need to try to have openly glbt people representing the Episcopal Church on the Anglican Consultative Council. We need for our Primate and Bishops to be fully present voices within the councils of the Communion. I think that the Cathedral Deans need to become more creative about building relationships with other Deans and cathedrals across the Anglican Communion, so that the gays and lesbians among us may be heard and seen.

We need to be realistic that all this may take another generation, but I do not think we should walk away from the challenge of transforming the third largest body of Christians in the world, and I believe it will happen. I say all of this realizing that as much as I may preach and teach and advocate, as a married, straight male I am not paying the cost for this journey the way glbt people are. Only the glbt among us can decide if they want this journey and if they are willing to pay the cost. I hope for the sake of God's Church, and even more for the sake of God's Dominion, that they will find the ability to do so.

About the Author: The Very Reverend G. Thomas Luck is Dean and Rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Cathedral in Syracuse, New York.

Baptized in Philadelphia, confirmed and ordained in the Diocese of Dallas, and a member of the Standing Committee in the Diocese of New Hampshire, Father Luck has experienced first-hand the breadth of life in the Episcopal Church. His ministry is one of redeveloping communities by building bridges between people of diverse backgrounds and perspectives in the service of God’s mission of justice, mercy and peace, within the Church and the world. He served as a Deputy to General Convention in 2006.

Father Luck says: "I rejoice that the Episcopal Church offers a catholic sacramental life while adhering to the principle of the primacy of Scripture, seeking to drink in all the knowledge of the arts and sciences, and celebrating the ministries of all people, clergy and lay. Educated at Austin College, Nashotah House and Harvard, I have served parishes in growing suburbs, struggling towns, and coastal exurbs. I am currently Dean of St. Paul’s Cathedral, Syracuse which is an urban cathedral offering a variety of liturgical styles and music, including classical Anglican, jazz, and Sudanese Dinka. Among its ministries is the Samaritan Center serving over 200 free, hot meals every day of the year. I also serve as Canon Theologian for the Diocese of Central New York."

His wife, Jane, is a Deacon, and they enjoy a variety of music, sports, and museums. Their children are Shannon, a home health aid in nursing school in Syracuse, Ian, majoring in Parks, Recreation and Tourism at the University of Maine, and Ryan, majoring in Environmental Studies at the State University of New York at Plattsburgh.

The Bishops Speak

2007-09-26T22:13:00.000-05:00

The Episcopal House of Bishops have issued their statement in response to the Primates and the Anglican Communion.

We at The Episcopal Majority are not of one mind about the bishops' statement. Some of us applaud it, and some of us decry it. In the next few posts, we will share those views.

Meanwhile, you can catch up on the current commentary at the sites we have linked before.

Who is Drifting from Biblical Truth

2007-09-24T23:35:00.000-05:00

One More Disgraceful Attack on The Episcopal Church is Challenged
by the Rev. Thomas B. Woodward

Editor's Note: This essay was stimulated by a discussion of the remarks of Archbishop Mouneer Anis during Friday's session of the House of Bishops meeting. The archbishop’s remarks reiterated in part the baseless charges that the Episcopal Church has abandoned the Bible.

One of the commenters on the archbishop’s speech scolding the American church was a prominent conservative, Kendall Harmon, whose observations were reported on the conservative website, OneNewsNow:

Dr. Kendall Harmon, Canon Theologian for the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina, says it is very unlikely the Episcopal Church will agree with what Anglican leaders are asking. He says the denomination is in denial about its drift from Biblical truth.
"What's so frustrating about the Episcopal Church," Harmon says, "is they make changes and then when it comes to crunch time, they won't admit that they [made] changes, and instead they play games with words, and they say one thing and do another. And that's what's going to be attempted in New Orleans."

Canon Harmon’s allegations echo old and tired charges against the Episcopal Church. However, contrary to his allegations, this is the hard reality: The Bible is being taken more, not less seriously by the mainstream of the Episcopal Church. This is a truth that Canon Harmon and others in the Network/CANA/AMiA/WhatHaveYa group are unwilling to acknowledge or address.

Biblical scholarship did not end in the nineteenth century, though that is the impression left by those who claim to be the Biblically orthodox. Modern Biblical scholarship seems to contradict nearly every assertion made by those who are charging that the leadership of the Episcopal Church has abandoned the Bible. For instance, nearly every New Testament scholar notes that what once were considered gentle parables of growth (Leaven, Mustard Seed, etc.) have a quite different message – including biting attacks by Jesus on the purity code. It was upon that purity code that Paul based his rejection of homosexual behavior.

When you have Jesus undermining the Biblical basis for Paul’s condemnations, what you have left are Paul’s personal prejudices and beliefs. Was Paul right to condemn promiscuous sex, temple prostitution, and sexual exploitation? Of course he was! However, the evil inherent in those activities has nothing to do with human relationships built on love, mutual caring, and sacramental fidelity. Jesus, apparently, was well aware of the damage done when you impose a purity code onto human relationships filled with the presence of the Holy Spirit. Paul, however, must have been out with a cold during that lesson! [Pardon the anachronism.]

Paul corrects his misunderstanding of the continuing authority of the purity code in his long discussions of law and grace in his letters to the Romans and Galatians. However, for a few verses in Romans he seems to forget his own theology – and that lapse has led to the continuing use of ancient rules rejected by Jesus. Worse, Paul's blunder has been used as a weapon to batter and to exclude those we do not understand, as well as to crucify any church that recognizes their full humanity.

Many bishops, priests, and spokespersons from the "right" have derided the growing inclusiveness of the Episcopal Church as though it were a new thing, unrelated to our history. Our history as a Christian church is, of course, a history of ever-expanding inclusiveness. That history of ever-growing inclusiveness began with Jesus and the almost immediate struggles documented in the Book of Acts concerning the inclusion of the Gentiles. That history has continued down to the recent and much, much belated full inclusion of Blacks and women into the full fellowship of Christ’s Body.

How did we miss the persistent witness of Jesus to God’s intention and will that the kingdom be fully inclusive? It is there in plain sight in the parables of the Wedding Feast, the Good Samaritan, the Unjust Steward, the Persistent Widow, and others. In the Marriage Feast, messengers are sent out first to gather the marginalized into the wedding feast and then to those outside the bounds of the faithful in order to make the feast complete. The despised Samaritan is lifted up as the prototype of effective love. The devious steward and the sinful Publican are lauded by Jesus. In the parables of the Lost Coin, the Unjust Judge, and the Leaven, women are used as the metaphor for God. Is it that hard to get what is happening here?

Surely, to accuse a church with a wide embrace for those embraced by Jesus but marginalized by the religious establishment – to accuse us of “abandoning the Holy Scriptures” is to reveal a woeful ignorance of the Bible itself.

When asked about their claims regarding the Bible, invariably the “orthodox” turn to John 14.6, in which John quotes Jesus as saying, “I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” They take that verse of the Bible to have only one possible interpretation, which is – roughly – that it is only through repentance and belief in Jesus that anyone will be admitted to the Kingdom of God. Unfortunately for those who want to use that verse to circumscribe religious reality, several reliable interpretations of that verse contradict theirs, especially when John 14.6 is seen in the context of the struggles between Christian and Jewish sects/communities of the time. If that were not enough, the parables cited earlier and many of the healing stories (including, prominently, the child of the Syro-Phoenician woman) also contradict the "orthodox" interpretation of John 14.6. Jesus is constantly finding and affirming saving faith in those outside the community of faith. For him, that seems to be an occasion for rejoicing, not for hand-wringing. St. Paul, himself, contradicts John 14.6 in his long and often overlooked argument in Romans 9-11, in which he states that the Jews remain the People of God, as God does not break promises. In fact, as Paul notes, because the Christian community has been grafted into Jewish holy history, our relationship to the continuing Jewish community is one of dependence, not as replacements!

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.

By Popular Demand

2007-09-24T19:35:00.000-05:00

As the bishops of the Episcopal Church arrived in New Orleans last week, they received two things at the hotel registration desk: their room key, and a printed copy of Tom Woodward's The Undermining of the Episcopal Church.

We had received so much encouragement from bishops, other clergy, and laypersons that we printed a hard-copy version of Father Woodward's essay and delivered them to our bishops. We printed extra copies, and are now making them available here.

Readers of this blog are familiar with Father Woodward's four-part essay: "Cheap Substitutions Are Not Acceptable ," "Blasting Away at the Bedrock," " A Case of Spiritual Adultery," and "Replacing the Christ with a Code ."

Here you will find little of the usual rhetoric about our "Anglican agonies." What you will find is a fresh analysis of the issues before our church and the requests being made of us – all of which have implications that threaten to undermine not only traditional Anglicanism, but the Christian faith itself.

Fr. Woodward discusses the implications of our decisions on our understanding of life as sacramental, the authority of the laity in the governance of the church, the integrity of the sacraments, our commitment to the authority of the Bible and to its study, the authority of the Book of Common Prayer, the reliability of our ordination and consecration vows, our grounding in canon law, and the very nature of Christian morality – all of which is now challenged by a morality that is not grounded in the teaching and life of Jesus Christ or even remotely in divine love. While a couple of these matters have been dissected and discussed for some time, most have not.

If you want to order Father Woodward's booklet, click on the "Contact Us" button in the upper left of this page, and send an e-mail to The Episcopal Majority.

Here are the prices:

1-5 copies: $6 each (U.S. shipping included)
6-25 copies: $5 each (U.S. shipping included)
26+ copies: $4 each, plus shipping

We did not anticipate printing Father Woodward's essay in book form, but are happy that so many people have asked for copies to share with their friends and fellow parishioners.

Incidentally, the graphic posted here is the cover of the printed book.

Where to Turn?

2007-09-22T18:18:00.000-05:00

Note: We usually do not post two different pieces in a day (much less a weekend!), so many readers are not used to "scrolling down." But please do scroll down to read Bill Easter's provocative piece on property, which we posted this morning.

There is a great deal of news coming out of the House of Bishops meeting in New Orleans, along with a great many leaks and rumors and a great deal of spin. As I said a few days ago, we are not going to try to cover the news or the rumors. However, it may be helpful to suggest who is doing a good job of that coverage.

For those who want to keep up with the news and read some of the commentary, here are a few recommendations.

Episcopal Life Online is providing all its coverage on one page. Click here for it. They are providing photographs and video at their Multimedia page; that page also includes video (in two parts) of the Friday news conference with the Archbishop of Canterbury. [The photo at right is by Matthew Davies, courtesy of Episcopal Life Online.]

EpiScope, the Episcopal Church's official news blog, is providing links to newspaper reports from mainstream media covering the meeting. We cannot imagine how Jan Nunley (the voice of EpiScope) is doing this in addition to all the other duties she must have in New Orleans.

At the Episcopal Café, Jim Naughton and his energetic crew are offering news and analysis at The Lead, with longer reflections and essays at the Daily Episcopalian.

Thinking Anglicans – writing from across the pond – does a masterful job of capturing news stories as well as important blogs and analysis.

Mark Harris is doing much fine analysis at Preludium. In one essay, he discusses the blurring role of reporters and bloggers, and he lists his favorite sources. (We were deeply honored to be included in Mark's "A List.")

TitusOneNine provides a news digest, as well as some original materials. It's probably the most reliable and temperate of the news/analysis sites on the "right" side of the aisle.

StandFirm also provides news and analysis. This tends to be the site that first receives "leaked" documents and news from the Network bishops and other conservatives.

Many on the "left" side of the aisle turn to Father Jake for analysis of the major news.

Kendall Harmon's crew at TitusOneNine has provided a handy list of reporters and bloggers who are writing from New Orleans. Click here for it.

Meanwhile, remember that there will be rumors and gnashing of teeth from all sides. Little of it will matter until the bishops issue their statement after the meeting concludes Tuesday.

NFS

2007-09-22T10:16:00.000-05:00

Editor's Note: Father Easter's essay was submitted early this month and accepted for publication on September 9. No doubt, some visitors will ask "What the heck does this have to do with the House of Bishops meeting now underway in New Orleans?" We reply: Regardless of the outcome of the bishops' meeting, the regular work of dioceses and parishes will continue. Fr. Easter's essay addresses the discussion of how church property should be disposed, and this is a question that many dioceses are facing and will continue to face.

by the Rev. William B. Easter

Sales of Episcopal Church property are getting headlines these days. We hear stories of the Dioceses of Los Angeles, Virginia, and San Diego where the Church struggles to keep its property from being alienated by people who have left the Episcopal Church. Then we hear of the well publicized "sweetheart deals" in which church property has been sold for what appears to be below market value to departing congregations in Overland Park, Kansas, and Plano, Texas.

Stories about dioceses that sell parish property gives hope to the secessionists. Dioceses that sell property "on the cheap'" are lauded by them as reasonable, pastoral, and orthodox. In contrast, the leaders of dioceses committed to the continuing use of their own property are vilified as insensitive bullies, revisionists holding congregational majorities hostage to the letter of the law. These are the spins that are spun.

What is the cost of this vilification? I believe the defamation involved is a meager cost for what we retain. What we retain is our rightful legacy. We continue to burnish that legacy if we follow a policy. The heart of that policy should be akin to that of an antique shop.

Have you ever been in an antique shop, enjoying the clutter and the aromas of the past's patinas, and suddenly your attention is riveted by a charming piece? Perhaps it has the authenticating maker's mark. Perhaps it is the very same that was in your dear dead aunt's parlor. Alas! your hunt for the price brings you the dreaded news: a label with "NFS" is on it. "Not For Sale" is the shop owner's way of saying what is precious to her or him and what adds beauty to his or her life. The shop owner puts an "NFS" tag on some items because they are too priceless to be sold. In short, not everything has a price. Some things are priceless.

I think this homely example can inform an "NFS" policy concerning church property. Let me count the ways why this may be so.

Most often, a bishop begins the process of sanctifying church property – making it holy – by blessing it and setting it aside with a Trinitarian formula. Then the People of God, often generation after generation, add to the halo of holiness by the constant celebration of the Eucharist, numerous baptisms, marriages, burials, the very cadences of time. To this are added the experiences of grace that come with healing, reconciliation, renewal, and growth, and we perceive a place that has the deep patina of the Holy. In addition, people make their gifts of stained glass windows, patens, chalices, organs, columbariums, and so on. The fact remains that from the very beginning, through it all up to the moment, all took place under the aegis, the umbrella of the Episcopal Church – not from dissenters, not from secessionists, not from the disgruntled, not from the alienated. The genesis of and experiences in a place really do count, measured over the long haul.

How can we possibly treat the church's hallowed property as just another piece of commercial real estate on the market? If that is our bent, why limit ourselves to selling it to the secessionists – especially when they may very well use it as a platform for further disparagement of the Episcopal Church? Why not open up the sale to other Christian traditions or to the other two Abrahamic traditions? Think about it: Could we abide selling our Washington National Cathedral or Canterbury to secessionists? I doubt it. Are the holy places that those leaving the Episcopal Church covet somehow less holy than our cathedrals?

Dioceses' willingness to sell parish property fosters that corrosive attitude of congregationalism, opposed to our belief that we are part of a diocese, a national church, a world wide Anglican Communion, and the body of Christ. The result of this willingness to cede parish property by any diocese encourages the current occupants of a parish to decide they have standing as buyers, a kind of "right of first refusal," as it were. Agreeing to enter into negotiations with such a group disenchanted with the Episcopal Church accedes to them a standing they merely assume they have and raises false hopes in them. When we start to sell our property, we are responsible for raising those false hopes.

Consider this. Why would any church deed over property to folk who wish it harm and to displace it in a wider communion? Why would we deed property to those who also look to intrusive foreign bishops for oversight – those who will continue to act as pirates, sowing discord and making off with more and more of our churches? Individuals are certainly free to leave the Episcopal Church and build another congregation. They just have to do that off the Church's property. Would MacDonald's sell its locations to Burger King in order to further its interests?

Finally, and perhaps most important for the long haul, selling holy places sets a perilous precedent. It encourages those with perceived slights, injustices, and errors to view secession and departure with property as the simple remedy. It would be nice to think that our current cause du jour will be our last. History suggests upheavals are recurrent and have to be lived with and worked through, as we did with the Civil War, Civil Rights, and the ordination of women. Following the rhetoric of those who want to leave and take our property with them, we could have sold away the very churches we now treasure over and over again with each significant change in the way the Episcopal Church has responded to the world. Why aid and abet by selling property to those who care not to stay and tough it out? Rewarding questionable behavior is always a bad investment.

A diocesan policy of "NFS" will allay false hopes, save needlessly wasted time in negotiations, signal to our time and the generations to come what we value as precious – our heritage, the holy places birthed and reared in and by the Episcopal Church, all beyond price.

About the Author: Father Easter served in the Navy six years during WWII and the Korean conflict, mostly as an air traffic controller. He is a graduate of Ripon College (Wisconsin) and a Rockefeller Theological Fellow 1959 graduate of Virginia Theological Seminary. Also he's been director of Human Resources for two Chicago area financial groups. He has served as Rector and Associate Rector in three Texas parishes, where he was a rural dean, elected to a Diocesan Council and did research on sources of clergy restlessness in the late 1960s. He is a trained interim and has served five congregations in that capacity in Chicago and New Mexico and open to more. He is canonically a resident of Chicago and licensed the last 15 years in the Diocese of the Rio Grande.

Peace, Be Still

2007-09-19T00:43:00.000-05:00

by Lisa Fox (for The Episcopal Majority)

Surely all readers of this site know that the House of Bishops will convene in New Orleans for dinner Wednesday evening along with the Archbishop of Canterbury, some Primates, and members of the Anglican Consultative Council. It seems that many people and groups are working to create a tone of hysteria around this meeting of our bishops.

In the past month, Kenya and Uganda have consecrated American (and formerly Episcopalian) priests as bishops to serve in the U.S. Now Nigeria has announced they will consecrate four more, and Rwanda will consecrate three more for AMiA in late January. Bishops in Nigeria are calling for the Archbishop of Canterbury to cancel the Lambeth Conference due to the stresses within the Anglican Communion. In the U.S., a few predictable dioceses (including Fort Worth, Quincy, Pittsburgh, and San Joaquin) have announced they may "pack their bags" to leave the Episcopal Church, if the bishops meeting in New Orleans don't vote as they wish.

It seems that many voices are working to create an air of crisis this month. Many want to make us believe that the whole world may change on October 1st if our bishops don't vote the right way. As St. Paul would say, “Let me show you a much better way. . . .” [I Cor. 12:31 (CEV)]

We need to detach from the frenzy and hold onto the deeper realities in this struggle.

Reality One: Our bishops understand “spin” when they see it. Pat Ashworth writes in the Church Times: "Spin-doctors are dismantling the Anglican Communion in line with their political agenda." And "spin" is exactly what the Episcopal Church is seeing and hearing as we approach the House of Bishops' meeting. Powerful forces want to drive our bishops into a paranoid reaction, and they are orchestrating their message. But do not be led astray. Our bishops are a godly group. They show no sign of capitulating to this "spin." They need and deserve our support in resisting the distortions flying around.

Reality Two: There are important issues before the House of Bishops. Over at the Episcopal Café, Jim Naughton offers a helpful summary of the issues now coming before the House of Bishops. He also warns us not to leap upon leaks and rumors coming out of the meeting. The words of this veteran journalist are well worth heeding. We need insight and wisdom rather than power struggles – and for that we all require some inner calm and trust. Our best prayer may be one that echoes Jesus’ prayer when, as the disciples were cowering in the boat, He commanded the raging storm: "Peace, be still." [Mark 4:39]

Reality Three: Following the English Reformation, the life of the church proceeded pretty much as before. In the same way, it will continue in the United States after October 1. Some time after the stilling of the storm, Jesus said: "Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear. . . . But strive first for the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well." [Matthew 6:25-33]

What can we do today?

Do not give into the "bread of anxiety," which some are dispensing. The church does not belong to us. It belongs to God. And God will preserve the Church unto the last day. We are to eat of the Bread of Life which is for all God’s people.

Pray for all those bishops and others who will convene in New Orleans, and for all leaders in the Anglican Communion. This prayer from our Prayer Book seems especially apt:

Gracious Father, we pray for thy holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strengthen it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ thy Son our Savior. [BCP, pg. 816]

Peace. Be still. Trust in the Spirit, who will guide us – all of us – into all truth.

Covenant?

2007-09-17T23:30:00.000-05:00

Editor's Note: This essay was submitted by Bishop Theuner and accepted for publication on September 10, 2007.

COVENANT – with Whom? and Why?
by the Right Rev. Douglas Theuner

Under the entry “covenant,” my dictionary first lists a definition under the category of “Law”: “a contract drawn up by deed.” Then it lists a second definition under the category of “Theology”: "an agreement that brings about a relationship of commitment between God and his [sic] people”.

The proposed “Anglican Covenant” is surely intended to be a legal device – that is, “a contract drawn up by deed.” However, since the preamble to the Anglican Covenant does not even mention “GOD,” it can hardly qualify for the dictionary’s “Theology” definition according to which the “agreement” is between God and his [sic.] people and not merely among individual members or groups of members of “his [sic.] people.”

The historical definition of “covenant” in the Judeo-Christian tradition is that of a relationship between God and God’s people. Although the use of “covenant” as a description of how people deal with one another, under God, holds an honored position in the Reformed tradition, it is not so conceived in the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures.

It would appear that the framers of the proposed “Anglican Covenant” have opted for “Law” over “Theology.” Dare we even speculate about the place of “Grace”?

It is being suggested that Anglicans think in the language of “law.” Therefore, let us consider the great heritage of English Common Law from which our manner of governing ourselves derives.

The “crown jewel” of English law is the “unwritten constitution” by which the British people have governed themselves for the past eight centuries (using Magna Carta as an arbitrary starting point). It is from within this tradition that Anglicanism, particularly its polity, has developed. It would appear that the desire of some contemporary British politicians to compromise this concept in the United Kingdom also infects some of the Anglican Communion’s leadership.

The Anglican Communion is a rather modern invention created at the time of the American Revolution by the necessity of those previously loyal to the Church of England to restructure their governance after the abolition here of the monarchy whose incumbent was Head of both the English Church and State. (No matter that a majority of those Americans loyal to the Church of England were also political Loyalists.)

For a very brief period of time, between the Revolution and the acquiescence of King, Parliament, and Archbishop of Canterbury to the consecration of Bishops William White and Samuel Provoost in 1786, American Anglicans can be said to have been “out of communion” (again for purely political reasons over which church people had no control) with Archbishop Moore of Canterbury, who, nevertheless, considered the consecration of Samuel Seabury by the Scottish non-juring bishops in 1784 to be valid. So, effectually, began the Anglican Communion, a quarter of a millennium after Henry VIII’s break with Rome.

Membership in what we call the “Anglican Communion” continued to be defined by being “in communion” with the Archbishop of Canterbury, who was afforded a “primacy of honor” with no metropolitan jurisdiction outside the Church of England. There were no other “Instruments of Unity” until the Lambeth Conference was established eighty years later as a result of church-state concerns in England and questions raised by the teachings of Bishop William Colenso of Natal in South Africa. But at its third meeting, the bishop/bureaucrats [or is that a redundancy in an increasingly institutionalized church?] decided for a permanent consultative body, the realization of which finally came over sixty years later with the establishment of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1968.

With the founding of the Anglican Consultative Council, lay people finally had a place at the table with the hierarchs. But, then, just 20 years ago, the Lambeth Conference established the so-called Primate’s Meeting [so much for the emergence of the laity] as a periodic “get-together,” “kaffe klatch,” “meeting,” or whatever, of the chief doorkeepers of the communion. [That must be what the Psalmist meant when he said that he’d “rather be a door keeper in the House of the lord, …]

And so, the “Instruments of Unity” were complete. Well, not exactly, as both of the last two groups have executive committees of sorts. Then there’s the Anglican Communion Office and various networks, not to mention the ever-proliferating self-interest groups which all purport to know better than the others what God wants for God’s Church. There’s that arcane word “God” again!

Now, coming next to a church near you, is …The Anglican Covenant”!!! (Whoops, there goes “GOD” again… That’s what they must mean by a deus absconditus !)

Our “unwritten” Anglican constitution is to be superceded by an increasing number of bureaucratic and legalistic “instruments.” Someone needs to be in control, lest we run amok with the Gospel and the institution degenerate back into merely being the “way, the truth and the life”!

Since we’re talking the language of “law,” it might do us well to consider the wisdom of the legal, civic arena. For instance, the “Father of our Country” – himself a cultural Episcopalian, though not one that would be considered “orthodox,” “catholic,” or “evangelical” by any definition of this or any other era - notably warned us about “foreign entanglements” in his famous Farewell Address, delivered virtually 221 years ago to the day the Archbishop of Canterbury comes to meet with the American bishops in New Orleans. After all, we are Americans, and that experience has helped to shape the way we experience and witness to GOD in our own time and place. (Yes, GOD is back!) Just to set the context for Washington’s famous remark, he also said in that famous speech:

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest…constantly keeping in view that it is folly for one nation to look for disinterested favors from another; that it must pay with a portion of its independence for whatever it may accept under that character; that by such acceptance it may place itself in the condition of being given equivalents for nominal favors, and yet of being reproached with ingratitude for not giving more.

Such honest wisdom from an American President boggles the contemporary mind! But those among us who see things from a theological perspective, those of us who seek covenants with GOD, might be more moved by the words of the Son of God, who surely respected the Scriptures, obeyed Him whom He understood to be His Father and founded the Church as His Body. How might He who founded no institution and appeared to have no great faith in them -- He who is at perfect unity with the Creator and Sustainer of life -- look upon the “Instruments of Unity” drawn up by people who cry “peace, peace, where there is no peace”? Might He say of us “Covenanters,” as he did of our ecclesiastical forbearers:

Beware of the scribes, who like to go about in long robes, and to have salutations in the market place and the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at feasts, who devour widow’s houses and for a pretense make long prayers. They will receive the greater condemnation. (Mark 12:38-40)

The Anglican mansion may be a bit dowdy and in need of rejuvenation but, if it is built neither of straw nor upon sand, but upon the Rock of Jesus Christ, neither the winds of change nor the gates of hell shall prevail against it.

We don’t need another legal document, another covenant with one another, another “Instrument of Unity,” another long robe, salutation, best seat, or place of honor. We need only the grace [Ah, there it is!] of GOD as revealed in Jesus Christ: “the same, yesterday, today and forever.”

About the Author: Douglas Theuner is retired bishop of New Hampshire. He has previously written for The Episcopal Majority in this essay.

New Testament Vision of the Church

2007-09-17T21:37:00.000-05:00

The earliest Christian movements proclaimed the idea that "community" was not to be based on uniformity but would cut across different social and cultural locations and embrace people very different from each other. Jesus proclaimed a vision of life in the future kingdom in which people would come from east and west, north and south, to sit at the banquet table together. In different ways, the New Testament writers believed that the one creator was now providing the reconciliation that enabled early followers of Jesus eagerly to reach the diverse humanity of all creation. Early Christian communities challenged and empowered people to live by the values that would make such universalism possible -- the love of enemy, the commitment to reconciliation, the refusal to dominate, the willingness to forgive, the eagerness to value the gifts of others, the offer of unconditional love, and so on. Such values fostered great variety in the shape and composition of early communities.

David Rhoads, The Challenge of Diversity: The Witness of Paul and the Gospels, Fortress Press 1996

Archbishop Peers on the Primates and the ACC

2007-09-12T13:23:00.000-05:00

Editor's Note: We have received correspondence from Archbishop Michael Peers, in which he offers his reflections on Canon Robert Brooks' analysis of the ACC Constitution and the occasional confusion of roles between the ACC and the Primates Meeting. We are honored that he chose to share his insights with The Episcopal Majority, and we post his essay with his permission.

About the Author: Archbishop Michael Peers is retired primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, where he served as primate from 1986 to 2004. Further biographical details are available at the Anglican Church of Canada website.

An Amplification of the Brooks Document
by Archbishop Michael G. Peers

I write to give some background in support of Canon Brooks' lucid and admirable exposition of the realities surrounding the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) and its relation to the primates and to the Primates Meeting.

I do so out of a long relationship with, and commitment to, both institutions and to their goals and purposes. In the 1970s I was a member of the ACC as a priest representing the Anglican Church of Canada .From 1986 to 2004 I was a member of the Primates Meeting. From 1993 to 2003, first as Chair of the Inter-Anglican Finance Committee, then as a member of the Primates’ Standing Committee, I attended four ACC meetings (1993 to 2002) with voice not vote, and all the annual meetings of the Joint Standing Committee from 1993 to 2003.

It is important to note carefully the role of the primates referred to in the ACC Constitution in the process of altering the list of member provinces. The primate of each province responds to a proposed change in the name of, presumably representing the mind of, the province. (In the Canadian church, the primate’s positive response to each request to add a province to the list was based on a resolution to that effect by the Council of General Synod, not simply on the primate’s own opinion.) The reference in the Constitution to messages from the primates does not refer to a message from the Primates Meeting; at the time the Constitution was written, the Primates Meeting did not exist. I would contend that just as messages from the primates to the ACC about altering (i.e., adding to) the list of member provinces do not come from a Primates Meeting but from each of the primates expressing the mind of his or her province rather than a collective mind, the same would be the case in a hypothetical instance of deleting a name on the list.

The Primates Meeting arose after the Lambeth Conference of 1978. It is certainly true that, among many bishops at that conference opposed to the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate, there was a hope that the primates might clip the wings of the ACC which had issued in 1973 a response to the Bishop of Hong Kong stating their opinion that there was no absolute reason why women may not be ordained priests. But the stated purpose of the Primates Meeting was the provision of occasions of mutual support and building of a community of persons of similar ministries within the Communion. The very name and the style of the meetings express it well. Even though a resolution of the 1978 Lambeth Conference refers to a “Primates Committee,” that name was never used. The ACC consults. The Lambeth bishops confer. The primates meet.

Archbishop Donald Coggan, in presiding over the first meeting, made it clear that the meeting was not going to become a resolution-producing body. The Meetings have traditionally produced statements, and the preparation of those statements certainly produces debate; but no resolution is ever taken, or even proposed, about the statement or any other subject. Even Archbishop George Carey, who arguably contributed to the higher visibility of the Primates Meeting by acceding to the request from some members for annual meetings (an innovation advised against by those primates who chaired the Inter-Anglican Finance Committee!), resisted any attempt to introduce the proposing of motions. Such a change would overstep the mandate agreed upon from the first meeting.

Confusion of roles between the ACC and the Primates Meeting is not new. Soon after the 1988 Lambeth Conference, there arose an issue where the Primates Standing Committee (originally simply an Agenda Committee) wanted to act in order to resolve a difficult question concerning the future of the Anglican Centre in Rome. They were unaware that the ACC Standing Committee was also working on the same issue, and the two bodies were soon at cross-purposes. In order to prevent such problems in the future, it was proposed that the two Standing Committees meet jointly. This has been the practice at the annual meetings ever since. The nine members of the ACC Standing Committee and the five members of the Primates’ Standing Committee vote as a body. But, crucially, the Primates Standing Committee members may not vote on the approval of the audited financial statement because the ACC is a legally constituted body, registered with the Charities Commissioners of the United Kingdom, and only the constitutionally elected members are allowed by law to vote.

The ACC has its place and, because it is the only Communion-wide “Instrument” with representation from orders other than episcopal, it was designed to have the greatest authority. I pray that it may have the freedom and grace to use that authority wisely. The Primates Meeting has its place in a church which is “episcopally led and synodically governed” in the words Archbishop Coggan used. I pray that it may have the grace to use its leadership humbly.

The Undermining of the Episcopal Church, Part 4

2007-09-09T20:52:00.000-05:00

Editor's Note: This is the fourth and final essay in the series. The earlier essays may be found here, here, and here.

"Replacing the Christ with a Code"
by the Rev. Thomas B. Woodward

This will be the most important and also the most difficult part of this series on "The Undermining of the Episcopal Church." It is most important because the notion of a static Christian morality undermines not just the Episcopal Church – but the Christian faith itself. It is most difficult because few of us are able to distinguish the Christian faith as separate from our favorite Christian morality.

The Issue

When the leadership of the Network and similar groups call the Episcopal Church heretical or “non-Christian,” what they are referring to is not our failure to adhere to the historic creeds of the church or to Jesus Christ as savior. What they are referring to is our adherence to a moral code that is not identical to their own! While many “orthodox” Christians may believe their code is moral, as we shall see, that code is not in any way Christian.

When some church leaders from around the world charge homosexual people in loving, committed relationships with sexual immorality or rebellion against the will of God, they undermine the very basis of our faith – not just as Episcopalians, but as Christians.

These are strong statements, and I want to address them – not by adding to the polemics, but by focusing on several crucial underpinnings of Christian morals and morality. In this essay, I will address the nature of revelation, the problem with a single or “authoritative Christian ethics,” the unacknowledged ways moral principles often conflict with one another, the empirical record of necessary and sometimes sudden shifts in Christian ethics and morality at critical times, and the bizarre notion that there is a timeless “faith once delivered to the saints.”

The Nature of Revelation

For Episcopalians and most Anglicans, revelation has not been propositional; that is, it is not a set of precepts and rules. It has been primarily an understanding of the response of Israel to the actions of God in the world and through the person of Jesus Christ. We refer to Jesus Christ as the Word of God in good part because he is “What God meant to say.” After the great dancer, Pavlova, performed one evening, a patron asked her, “What did you mean by that dance?” She responded, “Had I been able to say it in words, I would not have danced it.” So, too, with God. God sent Jesus to live among us because Jesus was "what God meant to say" to us humans.

The Word of God is found primarily in the life, teaching, parables, and actions of Jesus, recorded in the Gospels:

the calling of the tax collector, Levi, as apostle [Luke 5:27-32]

Jesus' eating (“having table fellowship”) with those branded as the greatest sinners [Mark 2:13-17, Matthew 9:9-13, Luke 5:27-32 and 15:1-2],

the Beatitudes [Matthew 5:1-12], in which Jesus describes those who constitute the Kingdom,

the parable of the Wedding Feast [Matthew 22:2-14 and Luke 14:15-24], where those furthest from the moral and spiritual center of the community are welcomed and honored,

the parable of the Leaven [Matthew 13:33 and Luke 13:20-21], in which the Kingdom is described as the mixture of the purity of the flour and the corruption (that is the New Testament usage of the word) of the leaven,

the honoring of the Samaritan [Luke 10:29-37], the Syro-Phoenican woman [Mark 7:25-30 and Matthew 15:21-28], the rich Zaccheus [Luke 19:1-10] and the poor [Matthew 25],

Jesus’ demand that love – not outward observance – is the measure of morality [see, for instance, Matthew 23:25-26. For an analysis of the rejection of the purity code by Jesus, see “The Parables of Jesus from the Inside,” by Thomas B. Woodward, Sewanee Theological Review, Volume 47:1, Christmas 2003],and

Jesus’ constant undercutting of the religious establishment and the purity laws in his parables and teaching.

Is there another strain in the Gospels? Of course there is! Jesus said “not one jot or tittle shall pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.” That verse seems to be the good news for the “orthodox.” The bad news is that inclusivity, diversity, and grace outnumber Jesus' affirmations of the purity code in a ratio probably greater than 30 to 1.

What Does a Christian Morality Have to Do with Jesus?

Here is what C. H. Dodd wrote in Gospel and Law: The Relation of Faith and Ethics in Early Christianity (Columbia University Press, 1951, p. 39): “Since the church ... is one with Christ as the body with its head, it follows that its members are to find in Him an objective standard of ethical conduct.” That makes sense, doesn’t it? Then why – instead of looking to the Word of God, whose vision of the Kingdom is so expansive – have we spent so many years looking to the words of the author of Leviticus and of Paul? We need to remember that Paul does not claim Jesus as his inspiration for narrowing the Kingdom by excluding those who, from all we know of the Gospel record, would have been precious to Jesus. He does that on his own.

This same concern is echoed by Jacques Ellul, William Stringfellow’s French compatriot:

“… This is why Jesus attacks the Pharisees so severely even though they are the most moral of people, live the best lives, and are perfectly obedient and virtuous. They have progressively substituted their own morality for the living and actual Word of God that can never be fixed in commandments.” (The Subversion of Christianity, Eerdmans, 1986, page 70)

Oddly enough, most unchurched young people in this country seem to have it right. When told of the condemnation of Bishop Gene Robinson’s consecration and of gay and lesbian relationships by segments of our church, they ask: “What happened to Jesus? and what happened to the Christian principle of love?”

Conclusion #1: The preoccupation with homosexual relationships as sinful may be rooted in Biblical material and supported through the church’s tradition, but it does not represent Christian morality except, mistakenly, in name.

Rejoinder: But aren’t there statements in the Bible declaring homosexual activity sinful?

Mark Noll, writing in The Christian Century last year, noted the similarity between our debates about homosexuality and those in 1845 concerning the Bible’s view of slavery. He recounts a great debate in which Nathan Rice argued the specific proslavery texts and Jonathan Blanchard argued for the “general principles of the Bible” and “the whole scope of the Bible” in language remarkably similar to our debates today. While Rice won the hearts of the Biblical fundamentalists, Blanchard’s argument has come to represent Christian ethics by virtue of its links to the teaching and life of Jesus.

Speaking to the same issue, Henry Ward Beecher conceded that a defense of slavery [similarly, I maintain, to a rationale for condemning homosexual relationships] could be teased out of obscure, individual texts of scripture, but surely the defining message of the Bible was something else entirely. In his sermon of January 4, 1861, Beecher strenuously appealed to the general meaning of the Bible, as opposed to the pedantic literalism that undergirded the proslavery view:

"I came to open the prison-doors," said Christ; and that is the text on which men justify shutting them and locking them. "I came to loose those that are bound"; and that is the text out of which men spin cords to bind men, women, and children. "I came to carry light to them that are in darkness and deliverance to the oppressed"; and that is the Book from out of which they argue, with amazing ingenuity, all the infernal meshes and snares by which to keep men in bondage. It is pitiful. [Quoted in Noll]

The Utter Foolishness of a Single, Authoritative Christian Morality

Early Christianity was often referred to as “The Way,” which many Chinese Christians consider to echo or reflect the notion of Tao. [See “These Three Are the Treasures” in our Wonder, Love and Praise hymnal.] One of the benefits of the description is its accurate portrayal of the young church as different from surrounding groups that were dependent on structures with strict rules for the ordering of their lives. Though humankind seems to have a penchant for the security of rules and proscriptions, Jesus refused to give into that penchant. Instead, he spoke of human qualities in the Beatitudes, as Paul did of the marks of the Holy Spirit in Galatians 5. In what we have in the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7) Jesus speaks in hyperbole and metaphor, but not with rules and regulations. Christianity is not a set of rules and regulations to which one gives assent; it is a response in faith to the revelation in Jesus Christ.

If we are judged, Paul and Jesus both suggest, we are judged by the quality of our caring and of our relationships. The question is: How do your life, your relationships reflect the gifts of the Holy Spirit? What are the marks of Christlike love in your life with other people? You can’t get there by a list of do’s and don’ts!

We need to remember that our moral life is grounded in faith – in our relationship with God though faith. “We betray ourselves when we identify Christianity with a particular morality,” writes Ellul. “There have been Christian moralities through the ages, but Christianity is a faith and involves a relationship of faith as a community – it has never been a morality, in competition with other moralities, though many inside and particularly outside the church have attempted to make it so.” We must not embrace a morality that transforms our religion of faith and grace into a generalized list of do’s and don’ts that may or may not reflect current circumstance.

Ironically, if there were a perennial Christian morality, it would look much different from ours today. If it were to be patterned only on the words and teaching of Jesus, we would all be pacifists, fully and absolutely committed to the poor, with slight regard for what are now called "family values," and with even less respect for civil authority than what is embedded in our prayer books.

Here is what happens when we base our moral code on selected Biblical passages: in our history, that kind of thinking has led to our providing moral and military support for crusades and the Inquisition, centuries and centuries of church inspired anti-semitism, the segregation of our churches by race, the subjugation of women in marriage and in the culture, and on and on and on. Each and all of these confident moralities of their times fails the tests of divine love and of any real relationship to the person and the teaching of Jesus. They fail especially when compared to Jesus' teaching in the parables of inclusion and reversal, such as the Leaven, the Marriage Feast, the Good Samaritan and the Pharisee and the Publican. Yet, despite all we should have learned from that history, we continue to enshrine our personal prejudice into what we hold out as a timeless code of conduct. When we do that, we settle for the antithesis of a Christian morality.

Conclusion #2: Our moral rules, even when blessed with small Scriptural warrant and use over time, may, in fact, contradict the Truth or the Way as revealed in Jesus Christ – or in the overwhelming witness of the prophets and writers of the Wisdom literature of the Bible. When they do, we should abandon them, as our forebears have done over and over again through the centuries. Otherwise, we bring disgrace upon our faith and upon our God.

Morality – Even Christian Morality – Often Conflicts with Itself

I was once involved in a public debate on the subject of abortion with a very articulate and very conservative priest at a clergy conference. He argued sanctity of life, and I argued the spiritual values and principles of several exceptions to an absolute ban on abortions. At one point I said, “I am afraid to say ‘sanctity of life,’ because I fear I may have to give up important exceptions – and you are afraid to allow even a single exception for fear of having to give up your belief in the absolute sanctity of life.” We discovered that we were arguing about a paradox. When we acknowledged that life can conflict with life and that we are not often in a position to choose between good and evil, but among goods or between the lesser of several evils, we found that we could live together with love and mutual acceptance.

Any absolutist version of Christian morality has no place for that insight and reality. Living morally as a Christian is full of doubt and discernment and struggle. While Christian pacifism is thoroughly Biblical and a powerful witness to the teaching and person of Jesus Christ, we stand in awe of Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s struggle between that deep, deep strain within himself and the opposing morality of resisting Hitler’s evil with violence.

As an example of how quickly things do change, consider that following World War I, it was largely the influence of ethicists and theologians at Union Theological Seminary that helped our nation develop what some have called a "national pacifism" in response to the horrors of that war. It was in the early 1940s that many of the same faculty at the same seminary helped American Protestantism come to terms with the necessity of Christians to participate in World War II as an expression of their faith. That conflict between religious principles remained through World War II and future conflicts, as young men struggled with the effects of their religious upbringing in deciding whether or not to file as conscientious objectors to participation in armed combat. Many found they could count on their church for support for either conclusion!

Our understanding of Christian marriage has undergone exactly the same kind of enormous changes over the centuries, from a time when polygamy was practiced in parts of the church, through the use of marriage to achieve various political goals, the long history of our subjugation of women, the issue of remarriage after divorce, and our continuing struggle to come to terms with some understanding of equal partnership within marriage. The “good old days” were not good for anyone – neither the men who had most of the perquisites, nor the women who were subjugated.

Conclusion #3: Our increasing knowledge, understanding, and perspective do change the "contents" of our moral response to God.

Rejoinder: Doesn’t that mean that St. Paul may not have gotten homosexuality right?

Given all we know about real people in real relationships, living out their lives with all the marks of the Holy Spirit and in full dedication of their lives together to Jesus Christ, do we even have to ask? Our inherited moral codes regarding homosexual relationships were based on little more than a few verses from the Jewish purity code and the feeling that such behavior was "sick" or “nasty” or “dirty.” Today we have a choice. We can choose to hold on to that inheritance, or we can base our morality in the context of observing the loving, caring, and committed relationships among people we know. Sexual and interpersonal morality should be no different for married heterosexual couples than for partnered same-gender couples; there is behavior that is hurtful and cruel in both, as well as behavior that is loving and life-giving in both. We can tell the difference. Really, we can.

“But I Believe in the Faith Once Delivered to the Saints!”

The obvious question is “Which saints?" David Rhoads, in his recent book, The Challenge of Diversity, identifies four quite different understandings of Jesus’ teaching about love among the four evangelists and three pretty much mutually exclusive understandings of atonement. The diversity of ritual and ethics and theology was incredibly rich and diverse in the first centuries of the Christian Church. So the question is proper: Which saint? Was it Peter or Paul? Matthew or John? Irenaeus or the author of the Didache? and on and on.

When you get right down to it, “the faith once delivered to the saints” usually translates to “What I wish Jesus had established as an ethic for all time.” However, as noted above, Jesus’ ethics bear little resemblance to what those who nowadays call for “the faith once delivered to the saints” have in mind. The use of the phrase, “the faith once delivered to the saints” can mean only one thing: “Beware! Christian hoax ahead!”

Conclusion #4: You have to squash an enormous diversity of insights and awareness if you want to propose an unchanging Christian morality for all generations. When you do that, the result will be the opposite of a faithful response to the Scriptures as the Word of God.

Rejoinder: But isn’t it true that the Bible says certain things are right and certain things are wrong?

It may be argued that, on the whole, we don’t pay much attention to very much of anything Biblical writers urge upon us, unless their urgings happen to match our prejudices.

However, in response to the Rejoinder, the Bible doesn’t say anything. It is more faithful to say “St. Paul says/teaches that . . .” or “The author of Leviticus says/teaches that . . .” The Bible does not teach that women must have their heads covered in worship; Paul does. Because it is Paul who teaches that, not the Bible itself, we can deal with that requirement in the light of everything else we know. That is also true of other matters. (Hint, hint!)

The Episcopal Church has no reason to fear diversity in experience and in faithful response to the loving gifts of God. God did not die shortly after Biblical times. God has not delegated to the Anglican Communion Network or any other group the responsibility to exclude or to impose limits to the elements of Creation eligible for God’s blessing! There has been no parting of the clouds with God’s voice addressing Martyn Minns or any of the Network’s fundamentalist dissidents, crying out: “Narrow the Vision! Narrow the Vision! Punish those who honor my Creation!”

The Proposal

Here is the deal: The Episcopal Church could sacrifice the centrality of our Book of Common Prayer, our reverence for Holy Scripture and its study, our understanding of life as sacramental, our belief in the authority of the laity in the governance of the church, our trust in the vows our clergy make, and our longstanding refusal to countenance a morality which is neither Christian nor moral. Even if we bartered away those topics I have addressed in this series of essays, what would we get in exchange? We would get to revert to the primatial oversight we rejected at the birth of our church – and we would gain the evil authority to proclaim that such people as Michelalangelo Buonarroti, Sir John Gielgud, W. H. Auden, Ned Rorem, Lily Tomlin, and thousands upon thousands of men and women who have given their lives for Jesus Christ have, according to St. Paul’s teaching and Lambeth 1.10, no place in the Kingdom of God.

That is a proposal we can and must refuse. Our bishops must turn it down for the sake of all that we hold precious.

The Undermining of the Episcopal Church, Part 3

2007-09-05T19:59:00.000-05:00

“A Case of Spiritual Adultery”
by the Reverend Thomas B. Woodward

Editor's Note: This is the third installment in Father Woodward's essay, "The Undermining of the Episcopal Church." Parts 1 and 2 are available here and here.

We urge those who have not read Canon Brooks' memorandum on the Anglican Constitution here at The Episcopal Majority to do so, as it reflects some of Father Woodward's observations about the current shredding of the authority of the laity by those who want to discipline the Episcopal Church.

We have a curious situation in the Episcopal Church. Several bishops, whose chief duty is the oversight of their dioceses, are publicly opposed to their church – and this is not simply a matter of having serious concerns about one’s church. A number of bishops and others were actively critical of the church in the 1960s and '70s. What is different in the current situation is that these bishops are not speaking primarily from within the church and to the church. Rather, they are placing themselves outside the church and vilifying our church from that "outside" position. In addition, these bishops are active members of organizations such as the Anglican Communion Network and CANA that have been working for years to replace the Episcopal Church! On the whole, their strategy has consisted of public verbal attacks on the church, while seeking alliances wherever they can be found around the globe.

As I noted in Part 2 of this series, their pronouncements on the authority and interpretation of Scripture, their shredding of the authority of the laity in the church, and their decision to substitute the theology and ethics of a misogynist prayer book for our 1979 Book of Common Prayer represent a consistent attack on the very church that continues to pay their salaries. It also represents a repudiation of the vows these bishops and many priests made before God – and without which they would not have been ordained priests or bishops – although few will acknowledge that. There is a name for this – not a pretty name at all – but that will come later.

At the consecration of a bishop in the Episcopal Church, the one being consecrated makes a solemn vow before God. Along with marriage vows, the words and the promise made at one’s ordination are the most solemn any human being can utter. In the 1928 Book of Common Prayer the vow is this:

“In the Name of God, Amen. I, N., chosen Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in N., do promise conformity and obedience to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. So help me God, through Jesus Christ.” (p. 552)

If you chose not to make the vow, you were not consecrated. Note that the vow of obedience is to the Doctrine, Discipline, and Worship of the Episcopal Church, not to “what I believe the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the church should be” or “what primates from other parts of the Anglican Communion tell me it ought to be.” Note, also, there is no qualifier such as “all things being equal . . .” or “. . . until I believe otherwise.” The vow is absolute. In the 1979 Book of Common Prayer the vow is similar:

“… I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of The Episcopal Church.” (p. 523)

This is on top of the vow made at one’s priesting and when being ordered deacon:

“Will you be loyal to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of Christ as this Church has received them? And will you, in accordance with the canons of this Church, obey your bishop and other ministers who may have authority over you and your work?” (BCP, pp. 526 and 538)

Why Are Ordination Vows Important?

In our church, we take marriage vows very seriously. The vows made at ordination are equally serious. Why is that so?

First, St. Paul in Romans 9-11 goes to great pains to assert that when God makes a promise, that promise is unbreakable. Otherwise, God would be untrustworthy. The same is true with our Lord's promises of faithfulness to his vocation: for Jesus, the cross is preferable to the slightest deviation from his promise of obedience to the Father.

It is in that context that clergy and religious (monks and nuns) make their vows. When we break our ordination or consecration vows, we undermine the credibility of the Christian Church, the Body of Christ we were ordained or consecrated to serve. When we break these vows and walk the walk of disobedience, we repudiate before our people the unique power of the Cross. Simply stated, we commit spiritual abuse on those who trust us to keep our vows.

Second, when dealing with a married couple when one of the couple wants out of the marriage to begin or continue with a different partner, the advice of professionals is almost always the same: deal first with the stresses and anguish within your marriage, then divorce if you must. Only then – and only after a period of time – should you consider any new affiliation.

The same applies to one’s vows to the church. Spiritual adultery (pretending to be faithful to one while cleaving to another) is just that – spiritual adultery. It is holding onto your position of pledged loyalty and trust at the same time you are betraying it. Spiritual adultery – like marital adultery – tears at the hearts of too many people, including the heart of the adulterer, to be tolerated.

Then Why Do These Vows Seem To Mean So Little?

It is scandalous for ordained men (very few women) to stand in the pulpit of the church that nurtured and ordained them, urging their congregation to break faith with the Episcopal Church. That is a violation on so many levels. It is breaking one’s vows publicly. It is a violation of one’s fiduciary responsibility to the Episcopal Church, to one’s diocese, and to one’s parish church. And it makes a mockery of anything like integrity.

What does a person with integrity do when faced with irreconcilable differences with his or her employer? Do you quit? Do you continue to draw your salary while attempting to discredit, smear, or even destroy your employer? Or do you remain loyal, while working to find ways to resolve what seemed to be irreconcilable differences?

The answer is clear to those in leadership of the Anglican Communion Network and related organizations They continue to draw their salaries and they continue to enjoy the perquisites of their positions in the Episcopal Church while they work nearly full-time to discredit and undermine the church. What is true for them, unfortunately, is true for many “orthodox” parish priests: rather than resign from the church they vilify and undermine, they use the power and prestige of their positions in our church in an attempt to replace or empty it.

It's Gone Way Past Flirting

On another level, there are dioceses – such as the California Diocese of San Joaquin – which are attempting to remove any references to its constitutional dependence upon the Episcopal Church from its own Constitution and Canons. Why would those proposing such a move not simply resign from the church they so despise, instead of undermining and destroying it?

In similar fashion, it is clear that Pittsburgh’s bishop, Bob Duncan, in explaining his reasons for seeking Alternative Primatial Oversight (someone other than our Presiding Bishop) for his diocese, knows and his attorneys know that such a move is illegal and completely against the polity of the Episcopal Church, which he has sworn to honor.

This weekend, Bishops Duncan and Iker traveled to Kenya to take part in the consecration of two American priests as bishops who will represent foreign jurisdictions invading our own church in the United States! The violation of the Constitution and Canons of our church could not be more complete. The only analogy that comes to mind is a few chickens leaving the coop to deliver some steroids to a group of hungry foxes on their way to the hen house.My own conclusion is that Bishop Duncan and others should first deal with their ordination and consecration vows of loyalty to the Episcopal Church and its doctrine and discipline. They should have done so without involving their clergy or the people of their dioceses or congregations.

Bishop Duncan and others in our church could and should have done the honorable thing. They should have taken a leave of absence to sort things out with peers or spiritual advisors. If they decided they could no longer honor their vows, they should have announced their decision to leave the ordained ministry of the Episcopal Church. (After all, without those vows, none of these men would have been ordained or consecrated in the first place.) Once separated from their vows, these clergy would be free to seek out whatever succor or position they wanted in the church of God. Alternatively, they might have reached a different conclusion, after which they could have held a private ceremony of recommitment to their ordination and consecration vows.

For a bishop to encourage his clergy [and it is all male bishops at this point] to follow anything but this process is, I believe, “conduct unbecoming” – one of the grounds for presentment and trial of a bishop. From my own experience of leadership in the civil rights movement and the Sanctuary movement, I know how beguiling power and the attraction of being in the opposition can be. Those of us who have been more or less successful in resisting the evil hold of those things are fortunate, while those who succumb to that beguiling promise of self-importance always end up doing more damage than any good they might have envisioned.

The Property Issue

Some of this duplicity is reflected in the various attempts of several bishops and priests to take away the property belonging to the Episcopal Church as they strike out for life in one of the acronymous churches (such as CANA, AMiA, etc.). Who wants to present himself to a foreign jurisdiction with no property, no buildings, no cash, and in desperate need of a copy machine? Is the primate of the Church in Nigeria or Bolivia going to be happy with a new mission of 500 people in New Mexico or Florida, requiring full financial support from their own strained budgets? How about 20 such congregations?

The Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church are clear as clear can be about who owns the property. In order to be admitted into the Episcopal Church as a diocese, the petitioners have to agree that all their property is held in trust for the Episcopal Church, governed by the General Convention and Executive Council. When a group petitions to become a parish in a diocese, they have to agree, again in writing, that all their property is held by them in trust for the diocese and through the diocese for the national church. That has always been so in this church.

How can we think about the property grab by those leaving the Episcopal Church? It is probably like a teenage boy who joins a neighborhood basketball game. He plays happily and then discovers that the other boys have made a rule change he doesn’t like. What does he do? He picks up their basketball and goes home.

When anyone claims an independent right to the property of their parish church, they are acting outside church law. When people leaving the Episcopal Church argue that it was their money that built and maintained the church, they need to be reminded that when we donate money or property to the church, we relinquish any right or control over that money. Ask your church treasurer: every receipt of gifts given to the church and every pledge statement is required to note that the only thing you get for your gift consists of spiritual, not material benefits. You can’t claim a tax deduction for a charitable donation to the church, and then claim that it was an investment! The legal consequences of that dodge are considerable.

The particulars about our Constitution and Canons as they relate to our current struggles have been explored in a number of places. My point is that there is a disgraceful lack of integrity among those who remain on the church’s payroll while undermining it and among those who leave while they attempt to take with them the property that belongs to those they call apostate. Let us be clear: their actions and attitudes undermine not only the church that nurtured and (for the clergy) ordained them, but the holiness and seriousness of the baptismal or ordination vows they made.

This is spiritual adultery, and it is time to name it as spiritual adultery. The issues and concerns in our “Anglican Agonies” are not just differences of opinion. This goes way beyond differences of opinion: the undermining of our Book of Common Prayer, our commitment to the full participation of the laity, our long tradition of honoring the Bible and its authority in the church and in our lives, and the holiness of our vows and our signed agreements about property is about destroying the bedrock of our church’s existence. As such, it is an offense not just against those with whom you disagree: it’s an offense against God.

Postscript: Part 4 of Father Woodward's series on "The Undermining of the Episcopal Church" will be published in a few days.