Abp. Akinola: The Church is Infested by Inclusiveness and Multiculturalism

On May 17, Abp. Peter Akinola of Nigeria was the commencement speaker at Trinity (Episcopal) School for Ministry in Ambridge, Pennsylvania (in the Diocese of Pittsburgh). Here is part of his message:

..Here, you live in a community of faith. But out there, secularisation of society has led to the consignment of the Christian faith and practice to the background. What is left of the Church is infested by such new phenomena as “inclusiveness” here in the USA, and in the UK we hear of multi- culturalism. Championed by certain sections of the Church’s leadership who have been conditioned by the clamour for political correctness, both are said to be an attempt to accommodate all shades of opinion and practice in the church.

The consequences are grave. We end up with what looks like Church but in reality is not...

How can he claim that "inclusiveness" and "multiculturalism" are bad things? You must understand that these are code words. His aversion to inclusiveness is code for his desire to exclude gay Christians from the Church. His attack on multiculturalism is rooted in his insistence that Muslims are not worthy of dignity and respect.

His actions reveal that his unusual mindset are expressed in more than mere words:

To combat "inclusion," Abp. Akinola's solution is to send all gay Christians to prison.

To lead the fight against "multiculturalism," Abp. Akinola has adovacted for violence against Muslims.

An Anglican Archbishop champions exclusivity and cultural dominance in the name of Christ.

 The consequences are grave. We end up with what looks like Christianity but in reality is not.

J.

Congratulations Gene and Mark!

From Walking with Integrity:

On 7 June 2008, the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, the openly gay bishop of New Hampshire, and his partner of 20 years, Mark Andrew, had a civil union and church blessing. The service took place at St. Paul's Episcopal Church in Concord, NH. The Rev. Susan Russell, President of Integrity, preached. Afterward, a reception and dinner took place at Canterbury Shaker Village. During the reception, Susan gave a 5-minute video interview about the blessed event...

Congratulations!

J.

"Pittsburgh Stealers" Plan Their Getaway

There's been some developments in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh worth noting. Rather conveniently, the diocesan website appears to be down. Fortunately, there are a number of secondary sources from which we can glean enough information to attempt to explain these new developments.

First, some background. The Diocese of Pittsburgh has been considered by many conservative Evangelicals to be the "New Jerusalem" of TEC since the opening of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry in 1978 in Ambridge, Pennsylvania. In 1992, Alden Hathaway, the Bishop of Pittsburgh, named Robert Duncan his Canon to the Ordinary. In 1997, Duncan was nominated from the floor of the Pittsburgh's Convention and elected as their Bishop. He quickly became the chief spokesperson for the extreme conservatives in TEC. In 2004, he became the Moderator of the Anglican Communion Network. The Network has lead the attempt to replace TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada as the Anglican presence in North America. You can read more about this attempted coup here and here.

In November, 2007, the Convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh voted to remove all references to TEC from their Constitution. Such a Constitutional change must be passed by two Conventions. The second vote will be taken this October. They also added a new Canon, which stated that they were members of TEC. Apparently, they thought this would protect them from TEC taking any legal or ecclesiastical action against them. Note that a canonical change does not require two votes. We'll return to that point in a bit.

However, in June 2007, the Executive Council of TEC had made clear by resolution that such canonical changes would be considered "null and void." The removal of the "accession clause" by Pittsburgh is not recognized as valid by TEC.

In January 2008, the Title IV Review Committee certified that Bp. Duncan has abandoned TEC. Some of the evidence that led to this judgment can be found here. The House of Bishops will be asked to give consent to Bp. Duncan's deposition at their Fall meeting.

This brings us to the latest developments.

On May 27, the Standing Committee of Pittsburgh issued a statement. Here's part of it:

...Should our Diocesan Bishop be validly deposed pursuant to the requirements set forth in the canons, the Standing Committee of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is prepared to exercise its role as the Ecclesiastical Authority of this diocese...

Apparently, they are attempting to learn from the mistakes made in San Joaquin when that Diocese attempted a similar stunt. Mark Harris has further commentary on this matter.

A comment to Mark's post by Joan Gunderson, a member of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, was picked up by The Lead. It is worth repeating here:

The situation in Pittsburgh is such that even if Bishop Duncan were to be deposed at a House of Bishops meeting in September, the Standing Committee would go forward with the vote at convention to eliminate the accession clause from the diocesan canons. In fact, the diocesan leadership decided at its spring leadership retreat to move the convention forward to the first weekend in October (usually first weekend in November) so that there would be less time between such a deposition and the convention.

Please note that Bishop Duncan has assured himself of a comfortable transition. He has built a retirement house on land owned by the diocese and he and his wife have been deeded (as of November 2007) a life interest estate (to the longest lived survivor) in that house. The diocese also loaned Bishop Duncan the money to build that house (terms not in the public record.) In addition we understand that he AND Bishop Scriven have signed consultant contracts with the diocese for two years at full pay which will go into effect SHOULD BISHOP DUNCAN BE DEPOSED.

The Standing Committee has an overwhelming majority that supports 'realignment,' but there is one member who signed a public letter saying he was not realigning. This person is working hard to encourage parishes to stay in TEC. Trying to bring members of the standing committee up on charges before 'realignment' would be useless because the group ('The Array') that would conduct any Title IV proceedings is itself packed with supporters of realignment. Furthermore, there is no provision for trying the 4 lay members of Standing Committee.

However, rest assured that there are people planning for the future of the EPISCOPAL diocese of Pittsburgh. The group doing the planning represents the full cross section of those who will still be Episcopalians AFTER convention. This includes clergy and parishes who until this year have voted for all the measures put forward by those now pushing 'realignment.' We are a larger group than you might think.

And finally, some proposed resolutions for Pittsburgh's October Convention have been made public. Remember that cute little trick I mentioned about adding a canon that identified their Provincial alliance? Well, they plan on implementing that option. They are proposing a new canonical change, which will not require the vote of two Conventions. It will go into effect immediately. The new canon identifies their new Province as the Southern Cone.

They also include some rather bizarre language about those congregations that don't want to join the Southern Cone. They have to "ask permission" to stay in TEC. I think not. Since the proposed actions of the leadership of Pittsburgh will not be considered valid or binding, faithful Episcopalians need not do a thing, except continue to be faithful.

So, what does all of this mean? Mark offers a few possible scenarios.

There is little doubt as to how the leadership of TEC will respond, as they made clear in the case of San Joaquin:

If a majority of the House concurs with the Review Committee's certification, the Presiding Bishop must depose Schofield (in this case, Duncan) and declare the episcopate of the diocese vacant. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the House of Bishops.

Those 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.

J.

Tobias Wolff on the Power of Aesthetics

An essay in the New Yorker by Tobias Wolff offers some thoughts that might lead to a possible expansion on our previous conversations about evangelism.

Tobias tells us of a night in Oxford back in 1970 when he accompanied a friend to a showing of Ingmar Bergman's Winter Light at a local church. Tobias was moved by the film, but turned off by what happened after it was over:

...Now the minister motioned to the projectionist, and an image of Jesus holding a lantern filled the screen. I had seen it before, in the Keble College chapel: William Holman Hunt’s painting “The Light of the World.”

Let me say that up to that moment I’d been listening, really listening, attentive as the fisherman for an answer to the bleakness of our situation. And this minister was no Tomas: he was clear and confident, he knew he had that answer, and I’d begun to feel a sense of grudging assent—not surrender but the first stirrings—when that picture appeared. And then I lost it.

Because I really disliked that painting. It seemed to me a typical Pre-Raphaelite production: garish, melodramatic, cloying in its technique and sentimentality; pretentious humbug. The contrast between Bergman’s severe, honest art and this painting, on the same screen, chilled me. Was this what the minister held in his mind as the answer to all our problems—a kitschy figure from a calendar? I turned to Rob. “Let’s get a pint”...

But that is not the end of the story. It is the response of his friend that causes Tobias to reflect more deeply on our varied responses to aesthetics:

...But Rob was intent on this very image. Rapt. He barely glanced at me. “You go on.”

That night—to some extent, that picture—changed his life. He enrolled in Bible classes at the church, and went on to become a missionary in Africa. The same night sent me in the opposite direction, at least for a time. But would a different painting—Caravaggio’s “Conversion of St. Paul,” for example—have kept me in the pew? We like to think of our beliefs, and disbeliefs, as founded on reason and close, thoughtful observation. Only in theory do we begin to suspect the power of aesthetics to shape our lives.

And what drew me back, some time later, toward the possibility of faith? Poetry. George Herbert and Gerard Manley Hopkins and T. S. Eliot. One night, I was reading the last lines of “Little Gidding” to a friend, my voice thick with emotion, and when I looked up he was staring at me with kindly amusement. “So,” he said. “You really like that stuff?”

Here are the closing lines of Eliot's Little Gidding:

With the drawing of this Love and the voice of this
Calling

We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time.
Through the unknown, unremembered gate
When the last of earth left to discover
Is that which was the beginning;
At the source of the longest river
The voice of the hidden waterfall
And the children in the apple-tree
Not known, because not looked for
But heard, half-heard, in the stillness
Between two waves of the sea.
Quick now, here, now, always—
A condition of complete simplicity
(Costing not less than everything)
And all shall be well and
All manner of thing shall be well
When the tongues of flame are in-folded
Into the crowned knot of fire
And the fire and the rose are one.

Do read the entire poem. There's some other great lines to be found in it. To explore further what Eliot might have been doing in this work would require delving into Dante, among other topics, which would take this conversation off on a serious tangent, so maybe we'll bookmark that discussion for another time.

What I'd be interested in hearing is what role aesthetics has played in your own spiritual growth?

To be clear, here is a definition of the term:

aes·thet·ics
1. the branch of philosophy dealing with such notions as the beautiful, the ugly, the sublime, the comic, etc., as applicable to the fine arts, with a view to establishing the meaning and validity of critical judgments concerning works of art, and the principles underlying or justifying such judgments.
2. the study of the mind and emotions in relation to the sense of beauty.

What works of music, art, poetry, drama or any of the fine arts played, or continues to play, a significant role in your own spiritual autobiography?

My thanks to Mark for pointing me to this essay.

J.

Dr. Jensen and the Bible

Dr. Peter Jensen, Archbishop of Sydney, is one of the main voices behind GAFCON, which is a gathering of conservatives for an "alternative Lambeth Conference." Some are suggesting that a new Communion, with lines drawn by morality standards rather than geography, will emerge from this Conference.

The Mad One points us to Dr. Jensen's recent statement for an article in the Sydney Morning Herald:

...Archbishop Jensen is one of the leaders of 1000 conservative churchmen from 17 Anglican provinces who will gather at the Jerusalem Global Anglican Futures Conference this month. Mainly from Africa, the Middle East and Asia, they are united on one principal issue: hostility to homosexuality.

But Archbishop Jensen argues: "This dispute is not really about homosexuality. It's really about authority and who runs the church. And fairly clearly, to most of the rest of us, God runs the church through the Bible"...

Did you get that? The current unpleasantness is not about a fear of gay cooties. It is about defending the notion that God runs the church through the bible. Well, imagine that.

What Dr. Jensen doesn't mention, however, is that it appears that there are only certain parts of the bible that God uses to "run the church." To understand what I'm getting at, I present you an oldie but goldie that Dan pointed to on Wednesday (two days before Dr. Jensen's recent words were published I might add...a timely reminder, Dan!):


Now you'll have to excuse me. I've got a disobedient son that I need to stone to death.

J.

Capon: "We Are All Dead Ducks"

One of my favorite theologians is Robert Farrar Capon. He was a parish priest in New York for thirty years. He's written over 20 books, my favorites being Hunting the Divine Fox and The Third Peacock. Here is part of his reflection on the parable of The Pharisee and the Tax Collector:

...The law, the commandments, are efforts at morality, humility, spirituality and, above all, are efforts at religion, are efforts at trying to do something that will get us right with God. All don't work. Therefore God, as Jesus speaks of Him, doesn't risk trying to save the world by human good behavior. The Pharisee's mistake, therefore, is not that he is saying something that it is just proud or a little bit arrogant, but that what he is saying is dead wrong. His goodness is irrelevant to the problem that he is talking about. Therefore, God says that the tax collector who simply looks at his shoe tips and says, "I'm no good," is justified. Now, why?

The point is that this parable is about death and resurrection. It is not about morality, spirituality or anything else. It is about the fact that both the Pharisee and the Publican (the tax collector), are dead ducks. The Pharisee is a very high class kind of dead duck, but they are both dead as far as being able to reconcile with God is concerned. The point about all of this is that the reconciliation God has in mind for them is totally dependent on their death.

Jesus came to raise the dead. He did not come to teach the teachable; He did not come to improve the improvable; He did not come to reform the reformable. None of those things works. Jesus taught His disciples for three years. They never caught on to very much at all. God has been teaching the world for a millennia. The world hasn't done anything much about it. The tragedies go on. The lies go on. The nonsense goes on. The twaddle goes on. All the things that are wrong with the world go on. They are not amenable to talk. They are only amenable to action and, therefore, Jesus came to raise the dead -- meaning by deadness, you in your deadness, the Pharisee in his deadness and the tax collector in his deadness.

Now you ask yourself a question. Do you like that parable? Of course, you don't like it. The point is that it violates every sense you and I have about the fact that we really are basically doing fairly well. If only other people were as nice and considerate and as wonderful as we are, the world would be a better place to live in and God says, "No. That will not work." It can't be done that way. It can't be done by people who think they are winners. It can only be done by people who are willing to admit they are losers and then who are willing to trust God in the death of their losing to do it for them, to deliver them the gift of a reconciliation with God...

...We have a God, in Jesus' proclamation, a God who couldn't get a union card in the God union, who couldn't make it because we have set up the rules for God. A God has to be a punisher; a God has to be a judge; a God has to be a respectable God. He has to do all the things that enforce morality, and God doesn't. On the cross, in Jesus, He drops dead to the whole subject of sin and shuts up about the whole subject of condemnation. It is over. As St. Paul says in the beginning of the 8th Chapter of Romans: "There is, therefore, now no condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus."

Therefore, this parable is about death and it is about the resurrection from the dead. The point is that death is all of the resurrection that we can know now. The most important thing is that we believe in Jesus. The dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and they will live.

I don't believe in resurrection. I don't believe in eternal life. I don't believe in life after death. I don't believe in the hereafter. Those are all opinions. I simply trust Jesus that He will deliver to me as He rose from the dead, He will raise me. Whatever that means, however it works, I trust Him because in His death is my reconciliation and in my reconciliation is my joy in Him...

Radical? Not really. Just different from what many think Christianity is all about. And what is it all about? Grace. We are forgiven before we believe; before we confess. We are raised up before we even know we are dead.

In case Capon wasn't quite clear, here's part of the interview that follows the reflection:

...Well, one of the problems with any authentic pronouncement of the gospel is that it introduces us to freedom. The point is that as long as the world runs this show what it tries to say is that if you do something wrong God will get you. What it said in Jesus is, by the blanket absolution of everybody in the death of Christ, that God is not going to get anybody.

For example, who is in heaven? People think it is good guys. There is nobody in heaven but forgiven sinners because there was nobody available to go to heaven except forgiven sinners and there is nobody in hell except forgiven sinners. The difference is that in heaven they accept the forgiveness, in hell they reject it. That's it. You can't get into hell by being bad. You get into heaven by being bad and accepting forgiveness. Now, that does in a way mean you have permission to be bad. If you want to stick your hand in a meat grinder, you are free to do that. It's stupid, but God isn't going to run the universe that way. God is not going to punish. He cares more about relationships than behavior...

Do keep in mind that this is not anything "new," or a "revision" of the message. It is the message of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, stripped of our society's fixation on everything being a transaction; you give this, you get that, etc. That's not how God works. God's grace, God's unmerited favor, is a free gift, granted to everyone. Being a Christian is not about being "good" or being "bad." It is about how we respond to God's free gift of grace.

J.

Barack Obama is the Nominee

Here is his speech from last night. Here's the conclusion:

...America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love.

The journey will be difficult. The road will be long. I face this challenge with profound humility, and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. Because if we are willing to work for it, and fight for it, and believe in it, then I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on earth. This was the moment — this was the time — when we came together to remake this great nation so that it may always reflect our very best selves and our highest ideals. Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.

J.

Lambeth Roundup

There's a number of developments loosely related to the upcoming Lambeth Conference that are worth our attention.

The Daily Episcopalian offers us "a statement by Bonnie Anderson, President of the House of Deputies of the Episcopal Church at Preparing for Lambeth: A Conference for Religion Writers held at Virginia Theological Seminary on May 30, 2008." Here's part of her comments regarding Lambeth:

...I think that the Archbishop has given up trying to get our bishops to take an independent stand on the future of the moratorium of same sex blessings for instance, and is now moving to “plan B” and turning his attention to encouraging our bishops to understand their “distinctive charism” as bishops, perhaps in a new way. I envision Archbishop Rowan pondering in, to use his word, “puzzlement” why these bishops of the Episcopal church don’t just stand up and exercise their authority as bishops like most of the rest of the bishops in the Communion do. Why would our bishops “bind themselves to future direction for the Convention?” Some of us in TEC in the past have thought that perhaps the Archbishop and others in the Anglican Communion do not understand the baptismal covenant that we hold foundational. Perhaps they just don’t “get” the way we choose to govern ourselves; the ministers of the church as the laity, clergy and the bishops, and that at the very core of our beliefs we believe in the God- given gifts of all God’s people, none more important than the other, just gifts differing. We believe that God speaks uniquely through laity, bishops, priests and deacons. This participatory structure in our church allows a fullness of revelation and insight that must not be lost in this important time of discernment. But I think our governance is clearly understood. I just don’t think the Archbishop has much use for it...

I would suspect that there is a good possibility that many, if not most, of the Bishops in the Anglican Communion are uncomfortable with the participatory structure of our church. They may not say so publicly, however. It makes things much more complex when the hoi poli are given voice and vote on matters that, apparently according to Dr. Williams, they are clearly insufficiently competent to hold an informed opinion.

In this regard, President Anderson's mentioning of the Baptismal Covenant (which I would suggest is the only "covenant" we need) is not accidental. Either we accept that, by the nature of their baptism, the members of all four orders of ministry have their place at the table, and their roles to play in the life of the Church, or we need to start only baptizing those who are called to Holy Orders. If you want to muzzle and shackle the lay order, then you had better stop baptizing them.

Regarding Lambeth invitations, Bishop Jerry Lamb of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin has been invited to attend. That was to be expected, as Bp. Lamb is listed as the Provisional Bishop of San Joaquin in the Anglican Communion's Provincial Directory. What is curious, however, is that even though their former Bishop, John-David Schofield, has no jurisdiction in any listing in that same directory, we are told that he has also been invited to Lambeth. Possibly the former Bishop's recent attempt to run off with 4 million dollars belonging to his former Diocese might be cause for Dr. Williams to reconsider that particular invitation. If one of the criteria Canterbury is using in his decision to exclude certain Bishops from Lambeth is the potential scandal their presence might cause, I would suggest that John-David Schofield certainly qualifies as one of those that needs to be excluded, for much better reasons than others whom Canterbury has judged as unfit for Lambeth.

Speaking of those unjustly banned from Lambeth, Elizabeth Kaeton has launched the Christmas in July Fundraising Appeal. Here's more about it:

As many of you are painfully aware, the Rt. Rev’d Gene Robinson, duly elected and consecrated Bishop of New Hampshire, has not been invited to attend Lambeth Conference, the once a decade gathering of Bishops and Primates around the Anglican Communion which has, for over thirty years, pledged to be part of a ‘Listening Process’ of the stories of LGBT people.

Never mind. Bishop Gene will be there anyway.

The Incarnation has always been something of a scandal. For some, the Incarnation is a threat that must be silenced or destroyed.

Bishop Gene and his beloved Mark have received constant death threats. When Bishop Gene was in England just a few weeks ago, Mark received two death threats on the answering machine of their home – they were "angry and credible" and a serious concern since that number has been carefully guarded.

It goes without saying that Bishop Gene will need greater security and protection while at Lambeth. That actual expense will come to over 70,000 American dollars.

Thank God, quite a bit of it has already been raised, but there is a wee bit of a gap - about 20 thousand American dollars worth.

That's where you come in. I am counting on the readers of this Blog to be generous again. You were wonderful in responding with the Christmas Appeal for the kiddo’s in the City of God with over $10,000 in contributions. I’m hoping you will be just as generous with this Christmas in July Appeal.

Please make out your check to The Episcopal Church of St. Paul, marked “Bishop Gene” and mail it to:

Christmas in July
The Episcopal Church of St. Paul
200 Main Street
Chatham, NJ 07928...

There is also a paypal button on Elizabeth's site at the top on the right for those wanting to make their contribution electronically.

Elizabeth also alerts us to a new way for all four orders of ministry to have input when the Bishops' gather in England this Summer; Letters to Lambeth:

From the Windsor Report forward we have heard calls for what is called “The Listening Process,“ meaning a deep, Communion-wide attentiveness to the lives of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) people.
We believe belief that forwarding the listening process is a work that needs to be engaged by all of us who think it would be valuable, rather than for us to wait for some entity to take up the work for us.

To this end, we invite you to participate in the Letter to Lambeth program sponsored by Oasis California. LGBT Anglicans and their allies from around the Communion can use this web site to speak to the Lambeth Listening Process...

So what will happen at Lambeth? There will be much talk about an Anglican Covenant. For those interested in learning more about this particular matter, The Episcopal Cafe is hosting "Covenant Week". They will be offering five essays this week on the St. Andrews Draft. The first essay, by Tobias Haller, can be found here. The second essay, by Marshall Scott, can be found here.

What else might happen at Lambeth? According to our Presiding Bishop, not much:

Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said last Tuesday that she does not expect up-or-down votes on the role of gays and lesbians in the church at a meeting of global Anglican leaders in England this summer.

The Lambeth Conference, a once-a-decade gathering of bishops from the 38 provinces of the worldwide Anglican Communion, will instead be an opportunity for bishops to work out differences in closed-door discussion groups, according to organizers.

"I don't expect legislation at Lambeth. That's not why we're going," Jefferts Schori told reporters. "It's a global conversation. ... It's not going to make a final decision about anything."

So, there you have the latest Lambeth-related news. Did I miss anything?

J.

Let's Help IT Get Married!

We have previously discussed the overturning of the gay marriage ban by the California Supreme Court and the decision by the Vestry of All Saints, Pasadena to "treat all couples presenting themselves for the rite of marriage equally."

There is an attempt by some conservatives in California, funded by outside agitators, to pass a constitutional amendment that will block the protections offered by the court for those of a minority sexual orientation. Equality for All explains the situation for us:

..Ordinarily, the California Supreme Court's decision allowing gay and lesbian couple to marry would go into effect in 30 days, meaning gay and lesbian couples could start marrying as early as June 16.

However, on May 22, anti-gay groups filed a Petition for Rehearing asking the Court to delay implementation of its historic ruling. This petition is based on the possibility that voters may enact an anti-marriage amendment to the California Constitution in November. We believe this Petition will be denied and there will be no stay ordered by the Court. However, simply as a matter of routine process, it is possible the Court may grant a 30 day extension to consider the petition, which may temporarily delay the date on which couples can begin marrying. We will keep you advised...

...Because the court based its decision on rights guaranteed by the California Constitution, right-wing groups are trying to amend our state Constitution to eliminate these fundamental constitutional protections and take away the basis for the decision.

These groups, which have received significant funding from out-of-state right-wing organizations, are placing an initiative on the November 2008 ballot that will ask voters to amend the California Constitution to reverse the court's decision and deny gay and lesbian couples the freedom to marry.

We can stop them, but not without you and your support. A contribution to Equality For All's campaign fund will go directly to efforts to defeat this potentially devastating attack on our community. We must preserve the right for ALL loving couples to marry in California...

You can make a donation to the campaign here.

Equality California provides us with a Q & A page that refutes some of the religious objections being voiced by those pushing for the constitutional amendment:

Does this ruling require religious groups or clergy members to marry same-sex couples?

No. The court’s decision said the government may not discriminate against same-sex couples by barring them from civil marriage – a legal institution established and regulated by the government. Religious groups and clergy members remain free to recognize or refuse to recognize marriages within their religion as each sees fit. While some faiths do not permit same-sex couples to marry within that faith, a growing number do. As a result of the court’s decisions, same-sex couples may choose to be married by a clergy person in a welcoming community of faith or by a civil servant such as a judge or authorized deputy.

Beyond that, in the Episcopal Church, no clergy person is ever required to bless any marriage. I've turned a few couples down for various reasons. So, the idea that anyone is going to be "forced" to do anything by this decision of the court is simply a red herring.

Our friend IT and her beloved are planning a Fall wedding. Let's do our part to make sure this happens. Make a donation and spread the word. Let us live into our Baptismal Covenant, in which we have committed ourselves to "strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being" (BCP, p. 305).

J.

Garret Keizer: Rowan and Gene Should Go Fishing

We've got quite a few "news" items that some of you probably want to discuss. I'm about a week behind, due to real life stuff (my oldest son is now married!) and the discussions on evangelism. I'll eventually get to some of them.

But first, I want to draw your attention to Garret Keizer's excellent article in Harpers; Turning Away From Jesus: Gay Rights and the War for the Episcopal Church (subscription only). A Harpers publisher had promised me an advance copy, but for some reason it never arrived. After reading a few excerpts on other sites, I finally broke down and went in search for a copy in our tiny town. I found plenty of zines about wrestlers, weddings and wealth, but no Harpers. So, I broke down and subscribed. It was worth the price for just this one article, and I'll get 11 more issues of what is one of the better publications available, if nothing else because of their famous "Index."

Garret Keiser is the author of A Dresser of Sycamore Trees, which is one of the most well written books about day-to-day ministry that I have ever read. Keiser was a high school English teacher who became the lay vicar of a small congregation in Vermont. Eventually he is ordained as a Canon 9 priest. I have made this amazing little book required reading for anyone who speaks to me about exploring a vocational call to holy orders. It contains beautiful prose coupled with insightful theology drawn from the ordinary events of life.

Consequently, I was quite anxious to finally get access to his latest article, which has already caused quite a buzz on the blogs. Keizer did not disappoint me. Keep in mind that he is a wordsmith; the article is quite long. But there's some nuggets of gold mixed in there, making it well worth digging through.

The Lead published two excerpts, here and here. Consider this rather revealing bit:

...For me it is the methods more than the motives [of realignment leaders] that invite scrutiny, and the similarity of these methods to those of corporate culture that has the most to say to readers outside the church. What is “provincial realignment” at bottom, if not the ecclesiastical version of a corporate merger? What is “alternative oversight” if not church talk for a hostile takeover? For that matter, how far is “hostile takeover” from the sort of church talk that makes frequent reference to the mission statement, the growth chart, and evangelism’s “market share”? Martyn Minns, Peter Akinola’s irregularly consecrated missionary bishop to the breakaway churches of the conservative Convocation of Anglicans in North America, told me that he had learned more during his years at Mobil Oil Corporation than he’d ever learned in the seminary. I suspect that is a much less exceptional statement than either Bishop Minns or the rest of us would care to admit...

Alive on All Channels offers us a number of quotes from the article. Here's one of them:

...Archbishop Desmond Tutu, for example, has compared homophobia to apartheid. Still, his stand is hardly typical of his continent, and it took no great leap of imagination for those losing the ideological war in the United States to wonder if they might fare better by forging alliances in warmer climes. Some will find the idea of American conservatives using foreign bishops to support the interests of a white male hegemony in the Episcopal Church altogether preposterous, though it is perhaps no more preposterous-or less effective-than using the votes and tax dollars of working-class Americans to further the interests of the corporations that take away their jobs. It's the old drill of building a network, capitalizing on the most divisive issues, and locating the funds...

Jeff Sharlet of The Revealer offers commentary on Keizer's piece for Beliefnet's site, Casting Stones under the provocative title We're All Gay Episcopalians Now. Here's part of the excerpt that Sharlet focuses on:

...Still the question remains: How does a Christian population implicated in militarism, usury, sweatshop labor, and environmental rape find a way to sleep at night? Apparently, by making a very big deal out of not sleeping with Gene Robinson. Or, on the flip side, by making approval of Gene Robinson the litmus test of progressive integrity, a stance that I have good reason to believe would impress no one so little as Gene Robinson himself. Says he:

"I don't believe there is any topic addressed more often and more deeply in Scripture than our treatment of the poor, the distribution of wealth, of resources, and the danger of wealth to our souls. One third of all the parables and one sixth of all the words Jesus is recorded to have uttered have to do with this topic, and yet we don't hear the biblical literalists making arguments about that."

If this is sodomy, sign me up...

Here's an image from Keizer's piece that I found intriguing:

...I am among those disappointed with Rowan Williams for not inviting Gene Robinson to Lambeth, especially after speaking so often and so well about the rights of gay and lesbian people. But, after visiting with certain persons in England, including Colin Coward, the director and founder of the Anglican gay and lesbian advocacy group Changing Attitude, I feel I understand a little better what's at stake "if Rowan loses the Communion," which would mean losing any leverage for protecting the rights of sexual minorities in countries whose leadership both ecclesiastical and political is, as one American observer put it, "viciously, lethally homophobic." Who am I to say what the Archbishop of Canterbury ought to do? I can only say what I wish he'd do, which is slip out of Lambeth Palace well before the dogs are up and go fishing with Gene, a typically dotty Anglican solution to a "global crisis," I admit, but one not without precedent in the earliest strata of the tradition...

There's much more, including some background on Abp. Orombi of Uganda, chilling words from Davis Mac-Iyalla and a couple of good quotes from our friend Jim Naughton.

This one is a must read. Go find a copy.

J.

Last Call For Evangelism Commentary

I have an ulterior motive for the last couple of posts on the topic of Evangelism. I'm working on a "project," of which I may disclose the details at a later date. Then again, I may not. The deadline for "Phase One" of this project is in one hour (3:00 EST). So, if you have some thoughts, but have been hesitating about sharing them, it's now or never (well, not exactly "never"...there will be a "Phase Two"). Help me out folks. Let me know what you're thinking. This is brainstorming time. There are no wrong answers.

As a review, you can find the initial questions I asked, and the responses, here. I'll repost the questions:

1. Define the term "evangelism."

2. How do Episcopalians engage in evangelism?

3. How might Episcopalians do a better job as evangelists?

4. How do you do evangelism?

5. After reflecting on this, and reading the responses of others, are there new ways of being an evangelist that you might consider adopting?

My own thoughts on Evangelism, including a statement from APLM, can be found here.

The Episcopal Church has a page of faith stories that some of you might find of interest.

There is also an article entitled Spiritual But Not Religious by the Rev. George Anne Boyle that I found helpful:

In the wake of the New Age, and the ever-growing love affair our culture has with all things spiritual, a new mantra has emerged: I’m spiritual, not religious! It is the mantra of ex-Catholics and once-in-awhile Protestants and others on the spiritual path. This emerging mantra has grown up in response to religion that looks more like a museum, religion that says you practice THIS way or you aren’t one of us, religion that isn’t relevant to the life I lead, religion that tells us to believe 12 impossible things before breakfast and leaves no place open for questions or doubt.

And there’s this longing and maybe even a presence of energy in life. Perhaps if you are on the spiritual journey, you have felt this. Energy that gives life and joy — whether it’s looking at Rainer at sunrise, or playing music with others, or sitting with someone in a time of sorrow. That energy is what the Christian people call the presence of the Holy Spirit. The followers of this Jesus know this longing and energy only too well.

What is this longing? It is the longing to live in community with others from all walks of life — a community that is present in sadness and joy, a group of people searching and questioning and doubting and finding more questions about that presence together.

It's not about having answers as much as it is about engaging a story. It is about your story and how your story connects to an ancient story of desert wanderers that, in time, came to see that humanity and this energy they called God mingled and existed through Christ and thus, exists in all of humanity.

Is it possible to practice and grow your spirituality within an organized church? Yes! The Episcopal Church holds many possibilities open for those on the spiritual path looking for a diverse community of believers.

The beauty of the Episcopal tradition is that it is open to questions and new possibilities, as well as ancient teachings. Imagine a spiritual practice that is both grounded in tradition and open to new possibilities.

So, what are your thoughts about our discussion of Evangelism? Say it now, as the clock is ticking!

J.

Listen in Love

Our previous discussion on evangelism was helpful to me. Thanks to all who contributed.

To expand that conversation a bit, I want to introduce a statement from the Associated Parishes for Liturgy and Mission written in 1990 as the Episcopal Church launched "The Decade of Evangelism":

Statement on Decade of Evangelism - April 1990

We are alarmed by the call to a "Decade of Evangelism." We recognize that evangelization is a biblical imperative. We also recognize that there are contradictory understandings of what the word "evangelism" implies. But the term "evangelism," as currently used and heard, leads to confusion, misunderstanding, and anxiety.

We see evangelization in terms of unselfish spiritual awakening in which we proclaim the good news of God's love in Christ to a world greatly in need of reconciliation.

This call to evangelization is a frightening challenge for a church preoccupied with its own internal affairs. It will be less frightening if we can divest ourselves of false notions of what it means to be the church, and renounce the temptation to use the "Decade of Evangelism" simply to increase our numbers and income.

If we are to answer the call to evangelization, we need to become a people of humility and love, confident in our own standing in God's grace. This can happen if we become the church which the liturgy proclaims us to be: the people of the baptismal covenant, formed by word and sacrament.

We begin to evangelize when we listen in love to the stories of individual people and to the stories of the world. Only then can we discover how to proclaim the good news in ways that can be heard. We continue to evangelize as we proclaim Christ's death and rising in our worship together.

Our first calling is not to proselytize. Our first calling is to proclaim the reign of God in the world, seeking and serving Christ in all persons, and respecting the dignity of every human being, ready to give an account of the hope that is in us.

We begin evangelism by listening. And then we listen some more. It is only when we really hear the stories of others that we will know how to proclaim the good news in ways that can be heard.

The truth of the matter is that the way folks "did" evangelism 50 years ago simply does not work in most cases today.

I know those old methods quite well. When I was 12, I attended a week long Lay Institute for Evangelism. At the conclusion of the course, we were sent out onto the streets, equipped with a floppy bible and a handful of "The Four Spiritual Laws" tracts. We were instructed to win as many souls for Christ as possible in the next few hours, and then return to report on our mission at the end of the day. I found three elderly, unshaven and disheveled men in the city park who seemed so moved by my fiery rhetoric that they were quite eager to drop to their knees right there in the park and pray the sinner's prayer with me. Then, each of them asked me if I could spare a dollar, which I was more than happy to provide, now that I could report back that my mission had been a successful one.

The skills I learned in that course were to be helpful later on in life. By the time I was fifteen, I'd fallen from grace quite a bit, and was now a devotee of drugs, sex and rock and roll. I ended up as a ward of the court in juvenile hall, with no parent or guardian. Since there were no placement options, it looked like I might stay in detention indefinitely.

Then a friend who was incarcerated with me told me about this church group that got him placed in the Nicky Cruz Home for Boys in Fresno (Nicky Cruz was the main character in David Wilkerson's The Cross and the Switchblade and the author of Run, Baby, Run). So I asked if he could get that group to contact me. They showed up the next day. Immediately, they started in on trying to "save" me. I recognized the bible verses, the cliches, etc., and knew exactly what they wanted. And I gave it to them. Got very sad. Said the sinner's prayer. And then we all rejoiced; they for a sinner saved from the flames of hell, and me for being saved from the hell of juvenile hall.

Before telling you about Fresno, let me offer a word about "saving" people. The following story is told about Abp. William Temple. Apparently, he was known to be a bit abrupt at times with some people. One day he left the cathedral in "civvies" (no collar). As he was walking down the street, a woman approached him and asked, "Brother, are you saved?"

He turned to her and said, "Madam, I was saved as a wee lad when I was baptized, I am being saved right now, and I will be saved when my good Lord comes again. Now, leave me alone!"

That's a great response. It captures the centrality of our baptism to our identity as Christians, as well as drawing us to recognize that salvation is an ongoing process.

So, I got out of juvenile hall and was placed in the Nicky Cruz Home in Fresno. It was a very strange place. Every weekend, about eight boys would be loaded into a van and be taken to offer our "witness" at a church or youth group. If we didn't have a church gig lined up, we were taken downtown and given a stack of tracts to pass out on street corners. I lasted two months before hitting the road again.

I know those methods well. And I think that in today's society, they are a major turn off. Beating people over the head with the bible and telling them they have to turn or burn is the best way I know to turn most folks away from Christ. I can't recommend it.

So, what can we do? We meet people where they are in their spiritual life, and avoid the temptation to drag them to where we think they should be. And so, we begin by listening. We listen to the story of another person, and then share our story, always looking for the places where God's story touches them both.

There are those who will claim that such a deviation from the pattern that previous generations used to do evangelism is a watering down of the message of the Gospel. I disagree. The message of the Gospel, the healing power of God's redemptive love made know to us through Jesus Christ, remains the same. What has changed is the packaging of that message. And the most prominent new element of that packaging is a big dose of humility.

Those who study such things claim that a person hears the message of the Gospel on an average of 25 times before making any decision as to how to respond to the message. One of the biggest problems Christians face is that we all want to be that 25th person! Evangelism is not about getting another notch on our ecclesiastical belt. One plants, another waters, and God gives the growth.

Beyond that, I think we have to face up to the fact that the "turn or burn" message is probably one of the major causes for the fastest growing religious identity found in national polls is "no affiliation." People started getting turned off by the way the message was proclaimed in the 60s, when the cultural mores softened, and one would no longer lose their social status if they slept in on Sunday morning instead of getting up and going to church. Consequently, we now have at least three generations who have a limited knowledge of Christianity. They don't know the bible stories. They don't know church jargon. Their impression of Christianity is gleaned from the televangelists, who, for the most part, are still stuck in the 1950's mode of fire and brimstone proclamation.

It is not because our culture has become more decadent that the message of the Gospel struggles to be heard today. It is because of the Church's poor job of proclaiming that message. A dose of humility is long overdue.

In the previous discussion, quite a few folks mentioned the St. Francis quote, "Preach the Gospel; if you must, use words!" Others pointed out that can be seen as a cop-out. That's a good point, especially in regards to Episcopalians. Let's face it; we're uncomfortable with talking about our faith. We're the group that is sometimes described as the ones who imagine hell to be having to eat a four course meal with your salad fork. It just seems to be rude to talk about religion. Consequently, Francis' line is a handy excuse to guard our standards of proper etiquette.

But, not so fast. Remember that we have three generations that don't know much about the Gospel. At best, they are apathetic to the message. Some, however, are antagonistic to it, and possibly for good reasons. Bigotry, war and exploitation of our resources are sometimes justified by those claiming to represent the Christian faith. Our witness through our actions may be the only Gospel some of these folks may ever read.

Think about it. Someone considers the followers of Christ to be a joke, and the Church to be just another racket to haul in big bucks. But then they see Christian communities expending their resources on feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, caring for the sick and welcoming the outcast; reaching out to those who most likely will be able to give little back, and they take notice. It doesn't make any sense. It seems like a foolish investment. Unless, just maybe, they really mean all this stuff about love and redemption?

We've got a lot of work to do to rehabilitate our image in the world. We have a long history of unhelpful rhetoric working against us. It seems to me that the first step is to relearn the art of listening. Informed by what we hear, we can then engage in loving actions. Such actions will be the evidence necessary for some to reconsider the message we have to offer. Such actions will also put things back in perspective. Rather than striving to be that 25th person, we will be able to refocus on God's mission instead of our own, and then move with God, from glory to glory, transforming this world in the name of Christ.

J.

Evangelism

If you are willing, I'd like to do a little brainstorming on the topic of "evangelism." I'm going to ask five questions. Since this is a brainstorming session, there are no wrong answers. Ready? Here we go:

1. Define the term "evangelism."

2. How do Episcopalians engage in evangelism?

3. How might Episcopalians do a better job as evangelists?

4. How do you do evangelism?

5. After reflecting on this, and reading the responses of others, are there new ways of being an evangelist that you might consider adopting?

J.

Bps. Schofield and Cox Were Properly Deposed

The Lead points us to a letter from Bishop Stacey Sauls, Chair of the Task Force of Property Disputes, to the House of Bishops:

Subsequent to our meeting at Camp Allen, some Bishops of The Episcopal Church and some commentators have suggested that we may have failed to follow our own rules for giving consent to the deposition of a Bishop for abandoning the communion of this Church. A careful analysis and examination of the canon law, however, confirms that consent to deposition was procedurally appropriate, as the House’s Parliamentarian ruled and the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor has advised.

This memorandum is intended to provide the Members of the House with necessary legal background and the reasoning supporting that conclusion for the assurance of the Members as to past actions and in advance of their consideration of any additional such actions in the future...

There is a detailed history of the Abandonment Canon provided, which expands on Robert's analysis. Bishop Saul's letter also clarifies other matters, such as precedent and procedural safeguards.

The final point is worth repeating:

...Finally, it must be noted that no Member of the House of Bishops, present or not present, requested further action, investigation, or hearing as permitted under House rules. No challenge was made to the Parliamentarian’s ruling on the meaning of Canon IV.9. Similarly, no Member of the House of Bishops, as permitted by Rule XVII, requested reconsideration of the House’s action. Again, no request having been made at the time, the right to do so must now be considered waived.

Two Bishops abandoned the communion of TEC. They were deposed, without objection. It is a done deal, regardless of how many letters objecting after the fact are published on the net.

This document will be a valuable resource in the future. When those who will never be satisfied insist on continuing to flog this dead horse, this letter will provide you with all the necessary information to refute their misconceptions.

J.

Further Evidence for Bp. Duncan Being Deposed

You may recall that the Title IV Review Committee ruled in January that Bp. Robert Duncan has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church. The evidence considered by the Committee can be found here. Our discussion of this matter can be found here.

The House of Bishops will be asked to give consent that he be deposed at their Fall meeting. Before anyone brings up a popular red herring, the lack of an inhibition (think "restraining order") does not dismiss the charges against him.

It appears that Bp. Duncan continues to break the vows he took when consecrated as a Bishop in TEC (" ...I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Episcopal Church...") as he pushes forward his plans for an attempted coup. From Friday's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Pittsburgh Bishop Robert Duncan, a man at the epicenter of forces shaking the world Anglican Communion and its affiliated U.S. Episcopal Church, got a standing ovation from about 75 people in Waukesha County this week as he said that a new North American church was arising for traditionalists opposed to same-sex blessings and gay, partnered bishops...

75 people? Out here in the rural Jersey Pine Barrens, we offer a free meal to everyone who shows up and draw out more bodies than that. Maybe Bp. Duncan needs to offer free pizza if he wants to attract a significant crowd?

Continuing with the article:

..."What I can tell you about a meeting of the lead bishops was that there was unanimity among us, that all of the efforts that are swelling up from the ground around the country are to be encouraged, and that we actually anticipate that we will be in a situation within 24 to 36 months in which . . . a separate ecclesiastical structure in North America within the Anglican Communion will exist as a united reality. And that I think is very good news"...

There's the quote that needs to be added to the file; "...a separate ecclesiastical structure..." Keep in mind that this is code for his real intention; a "replacement jurisdiction," which means, as so bluntly stated by David "I Like a Good Fight" Anderson, they want the whole Anglican "franchise" in North America.

One more interesting quote from the article:

...By Duncan's count, more than 300 U.S. parishes have split from the Episcopal Church and placed themselves under the jurisdiction of willing Anglican bishops from Africa and South America. But he acknowledges that national church leaders dispute that tally...

He is using "creative" math again. In that 300 are a bunch of congregations, such as those that are part of the REC, AMiA, etc., that left TEC some time ago, and are not in communion with Canterbury. That is what is behind his "Common Cause Partnership" idea. Since he could only gather together about 50 Episcopal congregations to support his call for schism, he expanded the definition of his organization, to make it look like he had this big following.

On a related note, a group of faithful Episcopalians in Bp. Duncan's own Diocse of Pittsburgh have started the difficult work of dismantling his propaganda machine. This is not easy work, as the false messages are cloaked in half-truths and much speculation.

The particular piece of propaganda that Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh decided to shine a light on is a supposed "fact" sheet regarding "realignment" hosted on the Diocese of Pittsburgh's website. PEP's point-by-point response is entitled Realignment Reconsidered. This is an excellent, albeit lengthy, resource that you may want to bookmark. Here's just an example of what you will find:

2)Why are we really considering realignment? Are the differences between the Diocese of Pittsburgh and The Episcopal Church really just about Gene Robinson and sexual morality, like the popular media argues?

(From the Diocese of Pittsburgh)
Newspapers and mass media are more concerned about sales than theology. As has always been the case, sensational oversimplifications (especially that contain the word “sex”) sell more papers than quiet truths. In actuality, this debate re-volves around questions like, “Is Jesus really who he said he is?”, “Can we trust Sacred Scripture?”, and “Are there absolute moral norms given to us by God?” The “big issue” here is what it means to be a Christian, not just one single facet of morality.

(PEP's response)
Indeed, the dispute within The Episcopal Church is not all about sex, although the subject seems to be raised by those favoring realignment with surprising regularity. The Episcopal Church believes in the divinity and uniqueness of Jesus and in the historical creeds. Episcopalians believe that interpreting the Bible is an ongo-ing enterprise, however, and that many issues of morality cannot be resolved without reference to a particular social context. Episcopalians also believe that the Holy Spirit is a source of continuing revelation in the world. Episcopalians do not worship the Bible, but the Triune God.

Those urging realignment, on the other hand, reject the traditional Anglican em brace of diversity and seek to impose particular theological understandings on the whole church, to the exclusion of competing ones. They are inconsistent in this approach, however, as evidenced by their willingness to agree to disagree among themselves regarding the appropriateness of ordaining women...

Do go read the whole thing.

It appears that Bp. Duncan places little value in the vows he took when consecrated as a Bishop, and really doesn't care if he is deposed or not. Otherwise, one would think he would choose his words a little more carefully.

I would guess that he has activated the "dual citizenship" ploy, and has already made vows of obedience to some foreign Primate. Why anyone would expect him to honor those vows, after he so recently shrugged off the bonds of his former vows, is beyond me. Any speculation as to which foreign Primate he has sworn his allegiance?

Keep an eye on Pittsburgh. Things should continue to get interesting in that part of the neighborhood.

J.

Memorial Day

Following the Civil War, many communities set aside a day to remember those who had died. The graves of the fallen were adorned with flowers and flags, and special services of remembrance were held. Eventually, the Union and Confederate observances were combined to become Decoration Day. The name "Memorial Day" was first used in 1882, but was not designated as an official Federal holiday until 1967.

In the last couple of years, we haven't spoken much about national matters here at Jake's place. One reason for this is that I believe nationalism is rarely appropriate within the life of the Church. Beyond that, many of us often find good reasons to be quite critical of our government, especially in regards to the current sad chapter unfolding in Iraq. On this day, I ask that we set those matters aside.

As far as personal disclosure, I am a veteran, being honorably discharged in 1977. I enlisted at 19, at the very end of the Vietnam era, and was stationed state-side for my entire enlistment. In a strange way, I was carrying on a family tradition. My father passed up a college scholarship when he was 18 to enlist in the Navy at the end of WWII. The war ended while he was still at sea during his first cruise. My grandfather enlisted in the Army at the end of WWI. He was discharged before his company was issued rifles.

I think that sometimes it is difficult for those who have never served in the military to understand what would cause young men and women to make such a decision. I want to suggest that there are two words that come close to explaining such motivation; honor and duty. For a young person to feel it is time for them to step up and "do their duty" for the sake of their nation is a honorable decision. Personally, I feel every citizen should be required to give two years to civil service; if not as a part of a military unit, then in some other capacity.

Once these young people have taken an oath to defend our nation, it is a matter of keeping your word; of honoring the promises, the vows, you have taken. Once a part of the organization, it becomes a matter of living into those promises. Others are counting on you. If you decide to break your promises, it will impact those who are part of your team. In some situations, it is not only your own life that could be lost by refusing to do your duty; you may be putting other lives at risk as well.

Matters involving honor and duty often transcend other ethical debates regarding right and wrong. So, please, use care before judging our young men and women in uniform. Respect that, in their minds, they are doing their duty. That is a noble endeavor.

Since I'm not sure when, if ever, we will engage this particular topic again, I want to say just a little bit more. I consider myself blessed to be a citizen of the United States of America. I don't always agree with our leaders, and often am saddened by societal trends, but such disagreements and disappointments are the result of a deep love for our land. I am thankful that I have the freedom to be so critical. I still believe that we have the potential to continue to be a great nation.

Today, we are invited to remember those who have fallen. As an example of such remembrances, I invite you to visit A Guy in the Pew.

A national moment of remembrance takes place at 3 p.m. Eastern time today. I suggest that we all pause our activities and take a moment to remember those who have died serving their country. And then, you may want to offer the following prayers.

Let us pray.

Almighty God, giver of all good things:
We thank you for the natural majesty and beauty of this land.
They restore us, though we often destroy them.
Heal us.

We thank you for the great resources of this nation. They
make us rich, though we often exploit them.
Forgive us.

We thank you for the men and women who have made this
country strong. They are models for us, though we often fall
short of them.
Inspire us.

We thank you for the torch of liberty which has been lit in
this land. It has drawn people from every nation, though we
have often hidden from its light.
Enlighten us.

We thank you for the faith we have inherited in all its rich
variety. It sustains our life, though we have been faithless
again and again.
Renew us.

Help us, O Lord, to finish the good work here begun.
Strengthen our efforts to blot out ignorance and prejudice,
and to abolish poverty and crime. And hasten the day when
all our people, with many voices in one united chorus, will
glorify your holy Name. Amen.

O Judge of the nations, we remember before you with grateful
hearts the men and women of our country who in the day of
decision ventured much for the liberties we now enjoy. Grant
that we may not rest until all the people of this land share the
benefits of true freedom and gladly accept its disciplines. This
we ask in the Name of Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.
(BCP, pp. 838-839)

J.

Marriage Equality in Pasadena

From the Pasadena Star-News:

All Saints Church in Pasadena, one of the largest and most liberal Episcopalian congregations in the country, announced Thursday it will begin performing wedding ceremonies for gay couples starting June 16.

In what All Saints Rector the Rev. Ed Bacon called a "historic vote," church officials adopted the "Resolution on Marriage Equality" unanimously Thursday, after a special meeting of the 3,500-member congregation's lay leadership.

The church's action came in response to the California Supreme Court's May 15 ruling overturning the ban on gay marriage approved by voters in 2000.

All Saints has performed blessings for same-sex couples for the past 15 years.

But Bacon described the church vestry's vote as showing "stirring courage to move beyond lip service" to the church's commitment to equality by extending marriage rights to gay members.

"Today's decision is consistent with All Saints Church, Pasadena's identity as a peace and justice church," Bacon said in a statement Thursday. "It also aligns us with the Scriptures' mandate to make God's love tangible by `doing justice and loving mercy' (Micah 6:8) and with the canons of our Episcopal Church that forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation"...

Susan Russell provides us with the text of the resolution passed by the Vestry of All Saints:

MARRIAGE EQUALITY RESOLUTION
Adopted by the Vestry of All Saints Church, Pasadena, California
on May 22, 2008
WHEREAS, our baptismal covenant commits us to “strive for justice and peace among all people and respect the dignity of every human being;”

WHEREAS, Holy Scripture reveals that we are all created in God’s image and that God embraces all people as equally precious;

WHEREAS, the Vision Statement of All Saints Church, Pasadena, calls us to “embody the inclusive love of God in Christ” and our Foundational Values urge us to be “dispersed throughout this multicultural region for courageous and risk-filled work of peace and justice;”

WHEREAS, All Saints Church, Pasadena, currently blesses same-sex unions, but does not perform the rite of marriage for same-sex couples;

WHEREAS, on May 15, 2008, the California Supreme Court issued its decision holding that marriage is a “basic civil right of personal autonomy and liberty” “to which all persons are entitled without regard to their sexual orientation;” and

WHEREAS, as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision, on June 16, 2008, the State of California will begin to license and recognize same-sex marriages;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Rector, Wardens and Vestry do declare that, as of June 16, 2008, All Saints Church, Pasadena will treat all couples presenting themselves for the rite of marriage equally.

On a related note, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is receiving large numbers of phone calls from the supporters of "Limits on Marriage" (the proposed constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage in California) about his statement that he will not support a constitutional amendment.

The Governor needs to hear some alternative voices.

Because of the number of calls he is getting on this matter, there is now an automated system set up. To register your support of the California Supreme Court`s decision on LGBT marriage:

Call 1-916-445-2841 (Governor`s office).
Wait until you are instructed to press 1 for English.
Press 1, 5, 1, 1
(1=English / 5=opinion / 1=court / 1=support).

J.

Go Read This

Here it is. Go now.

J.

The Advantages of Having an "Offshore" Bishop AND a "Liberal" Bishop

Have you wondered about why some priests are so enthusiastic to become part of Province in another part of the world, yet hesitant to leave TEC? Doesn't dual residency in two Provinces simultaneously seem too complicated to be worth the effort?

Father Christian explains the advantages:

...Indeed, upon seeing my faithfulness to the church’s historic via media amazed and admiring clergy can only ask “But Father Christian – how do you cope with having two Bishops? Isn’t one bad enough?”

This question only betrays their sorry ignorance of Scripture, for clearly ”no man can serve two masters”(Matthew 6:24). Neither would I even attempt such a folly. At St. Onuphrius’s we diligently only recognise the authority of one Bishop at a time.

Since our worldly, liberal local Bishop is a stressed and easily intimidated man it makes perfect sense to keep him available for those occasions when he can be useful. When it comes to adding color to community events, or making a really big impression at society weddings, nothing adds a sense of gravitas like a well-trained Bishop telling everyone what a wonderful Priest you are. What’s more, because your original bishop isn't a foreigner there's no risk of him embarrasing you by speaking with an accent.

On the other hand, an alternate Bishop living thousands of miles away lets one dispense with so many annoying little nuisances of parish administration, since it removes the need to seek the Bishop’s permission before developing or selling church property, or rewarding oneself with a much-needed Sabbatical. Someone on the other side of the world is far too busy to care about such trifling matters. Besides, until all this excitement came about it’s unlikely his See consisted of more then twenty goat-herd families and a large garden full of chickens. Thanks to you he’s now enjoying more prestige and attention than he’d previously ever dreamed possible, so there isn’t the slightest risk of him upsetting the source of his new-found importance by questioning you about anything. He may be a Bishop, but he’s not so foolish he can’t realise that since you’ve jumped ship once there’s no reason you won’t jump again. And then who’s going to pay for all those first-class flights?

Finally, having two Bishops lets you simply answer “the Bishop requested it” to any thing your annoying parish busy-body asks (every parish has one – even St. Onuphrius’), and then leave them to work out for themselves which Bishop you’re talking about. Since neither is talking to the other there’s no risk of them comparing notes, so if they take the trouble to check with both you can simply accuse whichever Bishop the busy-body dislikes more of lying and be confident they'll believe you, since they'll be delighted to have "proof" of the "other side" acting dishonestly. Which will leave you free to continue ruling as master of your own domain...

Thank you, Father. Things are much clearer now.

There are indeed some obvious advantages to such a setup. I wonder if there's a Bishop in Tanzania, or some equally distant place, seeking to establish a missionary outpost in North America? If so, send me a note and we'll talk.

Presiding Bishop Mouneer Anis Will Pass on GAFCON

You can find background on this situation here, here, here and here.

Here is a summary of how the GAFCON conference has developed:

A few Primates decided to hold a global conference for "Rejectionist" Anglicans in Jerusalem. It seems they neglected to consult with anyone else except their little group.

Presiding Bishop Mouneer Anis, Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East, suggested that maybe the timing and the venue for this "conference" was not such a good idea. He was ignored.

The Bishop of Jerusalem, the host of this proposed conference, had not even been consulted before the invitations went out. When hearing about the plans through the press, he voiced his reservations about holding such a conference in Jerusalem.

Archishop Peter Jensen of Sydney, Australia, and Nigerian Archbishop Peter Akinola attempted to pressure Bishop Suheil Dawani of Jerusalem into changing his mind. They were not successful. Bp. Dawani's answer was no. Yet, the GAFCON organizers continued to promote this conference in Jerusalem in spite of the Bishop of Jerusalem's objections.

The "conference" was then "rearranged," with the conference part happening in Jordan, followed by a pilgrimage in Jerusalem. About 1,000 people are signed up to attend. About 222 of them are Bishops. Of that number, 219 are Bishops of those Provinces that have invaded North America and attempted to claim congregations to which they have no right (Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda and the Southern Cone).

Thinking Anglicans provides us with a recent letter from The Most Rev. Mouneer Anis, Bishop of Egypt with North Africa and the Horn of Africa, and Presiding Bishop of Jerusalem and the Middle East, informing us that he will not be attending GAFCON. Here's part of it:

...For this reason I appeal to you to take the above statements fully into your consideration and to be careful not to make binding decisions which may result in dividing Anglicans in the Global South and elsewhere. At the same time I would like to share with you a little more of my own thinking.

I believe that the best strategy for safeguarding orthodox faith and unhindered mission is to have parallel processes for building unity among those loyal to the biblical historic faith and ethics in both the South and the North. Orthodox leaders in the South and in the North need to continue to work together and support each other.

I would respectfully add that the Global South must not be driven by an exclusively Northern agenda or Northern personalities. The meeting of the Global South in ‘09 will be critical for the future, and the agenda will need careful preparation ahead of time...

I disagree with much Bp. Anis has to say in this letter, but I can agree on two points; this current unpleasantness is indeed being driven by "Northern personalities." And I agree that this meeting will be critical for the future, since it is obvious that what is being attempted at this conference is nothing less than to establish a new and exclusive global Communion.

Even a conservative Primate like Bp. Anis, in whose Province GAFCON is being held, can't support it. Why? Because of the "Northern personalities" that are driving it (Chris Sudgen, Martyn Minns, Bill Atwood, John Guernsey, Bob Duncan, Jack Iker, etc.) Imagine that.

J.