The Importance of Good Communication

I sometimes have the opportunity to speak about "The Three 'C's of Healthy Relationships; Communication, Caring and Commitment." It is through good communication, invloving equal amounts of listening and talking, that we learn who the other person really is. If the communication part is done well, we can then begin to express care for the real person, instead of our projections or assumptions about who they are. Out of this good communication and sincere caring grows a commitment to the relationship.

The communication part always has to come first, though. Without it, we are attempting to have a relationship with what may turn out to be nothing more than our own mental construct of who the other person is and what they're all about.

Now, this communication can happen in a lot of different ways. My stepmother was from Greece. She had nine brothers and sisters. Their idea of a "good time" was to sit around the large table in Uncle Cosmos' kitchen, sip wine, nibble cheese, and argue. These were loud, passionate arguments, on every topic you could imagine. But, when it came time to go home, everyone would warmly embrace, and comment on how much they enjoyed the evening. A form of communication? I think so.

I know another couple who would never dream of arguing in public. But they would periodically beckon one another into the next room and close the door. Only the expressions on their faces when they emerged some time later gave any clue that there had been some serious communication going on behind that closed door.

Some couples use "talk times." This is a method by which a set amount of time (say, 20 minutes) will be set aside to talk about one issue, and one issue only. Tangents are verboten. The advantage is that the partner who is more verbal will have a set time when an issue will be discussed, and the less verbal partner will have a time certain at which the words will end. If both happen to be verbal, the time might be expanded; if less so, it might be shrunk.

Whatever method is used, the important thing is that effective communication happens, intentionally. Without it, meaningful caring and long lasting commitments don't have a chance.

It doesn't take much imagination to expand this idea beyond the realm of a couple trying to build a healthy relationship. Isn't communication important in our relationship with God? Isn't it equally important in building relationships with our neighbors?

So, expanding this to include various groups, rather than just individuals (do individuals exist? Another topic for another time, perhaps), consider the most recent attempt of the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion at more transparency and better communication:

...Douglas said the committee, through the support of the Anglican Communion Office, "has pursued a course of transparency and open communication, which I think is vitally important if trust and understanding across the communion is to be engendered. We cannot minimize what a significant move that is in the right direction for our health as a communion."

The Anglican Communion Office's communications department, under the directorship of Jan Butter, has issued two daily bulletins during the meeting and more are expected. This is the first time the committee's proceedings have been communicated in this way...

So, was this attempt at "open communication" immediately successful? Not exactly.

The second daily bulletin contained this bit of information:

...A proposal from Dato' Stanley Isaacs that The Episcopal Church be separated from the Communion led to a discussion in which Committee members acknowledged the anxieties felt in parts of the Communion about sexuality issues. Nevertheless, the overwhelming opinion was that separation would inhibit dialogue on this and other issues among Communion Provinces, dioceses and individuals and would therefore be unhelpful. The proposal was not passed, and the group agreed to defer further discussion until progress on Continuing Indaba project had been considered...

Are there items in that statement that bother you? Various aspects certainly troubled me. And, apparently, they troubled Executive Council member Mark Harris:

...So a closed meeting of the Standing Committee can consider a proposal to separate The Episcopal Church from the Anglican Communion, supposedly with the understanding that such a proposal was in order. It failed not because the power of the Standing Committee was challenged, but because it was felt to be premature and the Standing Committee awaited further input.

Given this, why in the world would TEC, or any other church in the Anglican Communion, believe the Standing Committee to be a servant of unity in the Anglican Communion...

Given only this limited communication of what happened at the Standing Committee meeting, I was inclined to agree with Mark.

But, then on day four of the meeting, we are offered this briefing, which communicates what transpired in in the initial discussion, and later dicusssions, in more detail:

...As agreed, the Committee revisited Saturday's discussion. Dato' Stanley Isaacs delivered a frank and passionate presentation about the distress felt by some parts of the Communion about The Episcopal Church's decision to breach one of the moratoria. He concluded by proposing that rights to participate in discussions of matters of faith and order at the Standing Committee and the ACC be withdrawn from The Episcopal Church.

In the subsequent discussion Archbishop Philip Aspinall reiterated that the Standing Committee did not have the power to undertake such an action...

...the Standing Committee agreed a resolution that it: "regrets ongoing breaches of the three moratoria that continue to strain the life of the Anglican Communion; regrets the consequential resignations of members of the Standing Committee which diminish our common life and work on behalf of the ACC and the Primates' Meeting; recognises that the ACC and the Primates' Meeting are the appropriate bodies to consider these matters further."

Well, this is quite different, isn't it? Note that Mark acknowledges that the fuller "briefing" from day four does take some of the sting out of what might have been assumed from the day two briefing. However, there remains a very real concern with this new thing called the "Standing Committee" being a bit top heavy when it comes to Primates. In my opinion, the last thing in the world such a body attempting to oversee things Anglican needs are more purple shirts, let alone purple shirts who see themselves as "arch purple."

So, this new thing we call the Standing Committee is taking the brave step of being more transparent, and striving to do a better job at communicating. And, out of the gate, they may have taken a stumble or two. I, for one, give them credit for recognizing how important effective communication is. However, I do indeed hope that they also recognize that effective communication involves a two way conversation. They have spoken. Now, are they willing to listen?

J.

Convocation of Anglican Nigerian Churches in America Council, 2010

CANA Council 2010 is meeting this week. Who is CANA? Well, that depends on when you asked the question.

We first hear of it in a letter from Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria on April 7, 2005:

...After much prayer and careful discernment with appropriate colleagues and advisors over the last two years, and in full consultation with the Nigerian congregations in America, together with the enthusiastic endorsement of the Episcopal Synod and the Standing Committee of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) we announce the formation of the Convocation of Anglican Nigerian Churches in America.

This Convocation will function as a ministry of the Church of Nigeria in America. Our intention is not to challenge or intervene in the churches of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada but rather to provide safe harbour for those who can no longer find their spiritual home in those churches... (emphasis added)

Next we have a press release from Nigeria, dated September 15, 2005:

...The Constitutional change also allowed the Church to create Convocations and Chaplaincies of like-minded faithful outside Nigeria. This effectively gives legal teeth to the Convocation of Anglican Nigerians in Americas (CANA) formed to give a worshiping refuge to thousands in the USA who no longer feel welcomed to worship in the Liberal churches especially with the recent theological innovations encouraging practices which the Nigerians recognize as sin...(emphasis added)

The "Convocation of Anglican Nigerian Churches in America" became the "Convocation of Anglican Nigerians in Americas," which may seem like a subtle change to allow for the catchy acronym "CANA". But note that it is now offered to "thousands in the USA."

The next shift in the name is seen in a letter from Archbishop Akinola dated November 16, 2005:

...Earlier this year we announced CANA - a mission of the Church of Nigeria, a Convocation for Anglicans in North America. We see this as a creative way to provide pastoral and episcopal care for those alienated by the actions of ECUSA. As we said in our letter of April 7th, 2005, “Our intention is not to challenge or intervene in the churches of ECUSA or the Anglican Church of Canada but to provide safe harbour for all those who can no longer find their spiritual home in those churches.” While CANA is an initiative of the Church of Nigeria it is our desire to welcome all those who share our faith and vision for the Church... (emphasis added)

So now the "Convocation of Anglican Nigerians in Americas" has become the "Convocation for Anglicans in North America," and "welcomes all those who share our faith..." A piece by Mark Harris, written at the time of this subtle metamorphisis of CANA, may provide a bit more clarity as to why this shell game regarding the name of the organization is significant.

So, now, five years later, what will be going on at the 2010 CANA Council? Three events that occurred yesterday afternoon are worth noting:

2:00 PM - 3:30 PM - Clericus with Archbishop Nicholas Okoh & Bishop Minns - for clergy only. His Grace, the Most Rev'd Nicholas Okoh, and the Rt. Rev'd Martyn Minns invite clergy to this time of fellowship.

Who is Abp. Okoh? He replaced Peter Akinola as Archbishop of the Church of Nigeria. Since Nigeria's new Archbishop found no reason to notify anyone in the Diocese of Virginia or in TEC that he intended to be present in the US for this event, it appears he will continue the border crossing and property pillaging campaign launched by his predecessor. As a matter of fact, he has stated that very intention. Here is his justification for establishing a Nigerian beachhead in the US:

...Recently, our Church was classified along with Churches who have broken call for moratorium by the Anglican authorities in Canterbury, in certain areas such as ordination of Gay Bishops, conducting of same sex marriage and border crossing. Our church is said to have crossed borders in its pastoral work in the USA. We reject being put in the same category with churches conducting gay ordination and same sex marriage, and the equating of our evangelical initiative (for which we should be commended) with those who are doing things unbiblical. But for the Nigerian initiative and others like her, many of our faithful Anglican American friends who cannot tolerate the unbiblical practices of the Episcopal Church in America could have gone away to other faiths. The great commission to go in to all the world to save souls is our compelling constitution. The step taken by Canterbury in this regard therefore is ill-advised and does not make any contribution towards the healing of the ailment in the Anglican extended family...

Archbishop, it might be helpful for you to recognize that many Anglicans do not consider what you are doing in Virginia and other places to be offering "pastoral work." It is viewed as an act of attempted theft. I would suggest to you that one Province attempting to steal congregations and dioceses from another province is indeed a very serious ethical matter. Stealing is quite clearly an "unbiblical practise."

So, Abp Okoh is visiting Virginia, contrary to the moratarium regarding boundary crossings found in the Windsor Report. I hope Canon Kearon has taken note of this.

The next noteworthy event at the CANA Council:

4:00 PM - 5:30 PM Anglican Action - Institute on Religion & Democracy - Anglican Action promotes orthodox social witness, teaching, and practice within the worldwide Anglican Communion...

The IRD promotes social witness? Unbelievable. For those who may have forgotten, the IRD used to be a group of radical anti-communists during the Reagan era. When their fanatacism lead to the death of some innocent missionaries in Central America, they recast their image, with their new target being "progressive" (in their mind, "Marxist") leaders in the mainline Christian denominations. They were still able to draw funds from the same small pool of extreme right backers that supported their anti-communist rhetoric. What brought them to light for most Anglicans was their significant role in the creation of the American Anglican Council, which became the Network, which became ACNA. So why are they present at this Council? Because, when it comes to the schismatic Virginia parishes, the IRD has always been around, usually lurking in the shadows. Consider this quote from a 2006 entry on the Casandra Pages:

...The announcement about the Virginia parishes has been directed by the skillful spokespeople at the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), a neo-conservative Washington think-tank that has innumerable connections, through its board of directors and officers, to the conservative Washington area parishes that have recently left the Episcopal Church. These parishes have been home to prominent conservatives such as Oliver North and Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, as well as top-level IRD Episcopalians. For instance, Fox News commentator Fred Barnes is a member of the Falls Church congregation, and serves on the Board of the IRD; Fox has covered this story extensively and sympathetically, interviewing Barnes as part of a roundtable discussion, but never mentioning his IRD connection...

One other intereresting event occurred at the CANA Council yesterday afternoon:

4:00 PM - 5:30 PM - Bishop Minns: CANA's Dual Citizenship in the ACNA & Church of Nigeria - Clergy and congregations in CANA carry 2 passports: one that says we're full fledged founding members of the new Anglican province called the Anglican Church in North America, and one that says we're full fledged members of the most vibrant province in Anglicanism, the Church of Nigeria...

Dual citizenship. There is a rather unique concept. Is this an end run attempt in preparation for their appeal of the decision of the Virginia Supreme Court? Good luck with that.

So, what items of interst do you spot in the agenda for the Council of the Convocation of Anglican Nigerian Churches...Convocation of Anglican Nigerians in Americas...er...CANA?

J.

The Dark Side of Canterbury...Perhaps

I want to engage in a bit of an experiment. For the next few minutes, I want to allow voice to my own dark side, from which I can imagine the dark side of others. Here's what I see.

What if, in a desperate move to hold the Anglican Communion together, Dr. Williams is playing a very dangerous political game?

In order to play such a game, the role of Archbishop of Canterbury would have to be seen as a postition from which one can wield power. Ecclesiastical power, in this case. But a manifestation of power just the same, even in its weakened form in today's reality.

One way to have others recognize your power, your authority, your ability to dominate another, is to proclaim that certain people must be punished for their actions. Check.

But by what criteria would the person attempting to solidfy their power choose the victim that would set the example? Of course they would choose the one who is the most desperate to hold on to the bonds signified by the relationship with the one doling out the punishments.

So, in this case, who would be the most desperate? I would suggest that would be TEC.

Why? Well, as but one example, consider the recent decision in Virginia. The only reason the higher court did not agree with the schismatics, meaning those attempting to steal property, is because there has been no official division in TEC or the Anglican Communion.

But, let's say TEC decided to cease any contributions to various bodies within the Anglican Communion. Or, imagine that TEC, by order of Canterbury, is excluded not only from the ecumenical dialogues and the Unity, Faith and Order Commission, but our Primate is not invited to the next Primates' meeting. Or, what if TEC decided to launch our own Communion, made up of like minded Provinces. Could a case be made that there has indeed been an official split in the Anglican Communion, and even within TEC? Perhaps. It would certainly improve such a case, which is exactly what CANA, and the other schismatics, are hoping for.

Do keep in mind that we have wolves prowling the perimeter. ACNA would love to step into the void, if TEC was to act rashly, and send a message that we have no need of Canterbury.

What if Dr. Williams has weighed these realities, and come to the conclusion that the safest body on which to flex his power is TEC? Will we really pull our support (and our funding) when we have so many court cases still dependent on the fact that we are full members in the Anglican Communion? A safe bet on Canterbury's part, I'd say.

And, an effective way to get the other "troublesome" Provinces to toe his line. It appears as if that is exactly what has happened in Canada. Note this line from their "Sexuality Discernment Report," specifically addressing same sex blessings (the second suggested moratorium in the Windsor REPORT...not LAW, but REPORT):

...At this time, however, we are not prepared to make a legislative decision...

You do realize, that in the eyes of Canterbury, that is enough to give Canada a free pass. They have not done anything formally in Synod to go against the Windsor recommendations.

And the Southern Cone response to the border crossing letter from Canon Kearon? Most of us could write that for them, I suspect. Of course they will say that was a holding operation for "pastoral reasons," and they have since then passed on those holdings to ACNA. And I bet we never hear another word about it.

So, in the end, TEC will be the chosen single sacrificial lamb, as Canterbury will have discerned that we need him more than he needs us.

Perhaps some of you will now understand a little better the complexities of TEC's position. We cannot simply say we have no need of Canterbury. And Dr. Williams is fully aware of of our perplexing situation. Thus, we have been sacrificed, to appease the extreme literalist sola scriptura folks within the Communion.

Ok, dark side filter off. Now please convince me that I am wrong.

J.

UPDATE: George Conger is reporting that Bp. Katharine received a letter from Canterbury on April 17 asking her to step down from the Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion. Do keep in mind that Conger has been known to get stuff wrong before, so, until this is verified, we need to take it with a grain of salt. However, if it does turn out to be even partially accurate, I'd suggest it is additional evidence that we may indeed now be dealing with D. Williams' dark side. Mark Harris has more on this here.

Responses to the Pentecost Punishments

Bishop Katharine has described the removal of members of TEC from ecumenical dialogues as "unfortunate." She also offers a good summation of one reason we consider border crossings a "big deal":

...Asked whether Williams has adequately addressed the issue of cross-border interventions, Jefferts Schori said, "I don't think he understands how difficult and how painful and destructive it's been both in the church in Canada and for us in the U.S. ... when bishops come from overseas and say, 'Well, we'll take care of you, you don't have to pay attention to your bishop.'" Such actions "destroys pastoral relationships," noted Jefferts Schori. "It's like an affair in a marriage," she said. "It destroys trust."

It's important that those who dismiss these intrusions by foreign bishops "get" this point. There have always been congregations who disagree with their bishop on one point or another. Sometimes those disagreements can go on for years. Eventually, there is always some kind of reconciliation. But, when you add the new dimension of an "off shore bishop" standing in the wings wooing that congregation away, the reconciliation process is never given a chance. That kind of behavior is highly destructive, and quite unethical. It simply cannot be tolerated.

Inclusive Church has written a letter to our Presiding Bishop. Here's the concluding papragraph:

...To agree to a voluntary self exclusion would not be to agree to a self- denying ordinance for the good of the whole. Gay Anglicans are part of the Anglican Communion in every province. Some are facing persecution by their own churches because of their courageous witness. By remaining at the table, the Episcopal Church has the opportunity to remind those who serve on representative bodies of their existence and to raise their voice. We ask that you resist this misguided process that is formally excluding those who speak for people the Communion should urgently be seeking to include...

I agree with the basic premise here. This is not the time for us to abandon our brothers and sisters in other parts of the Communion. Isolationism is not the answer.

But, thinking pragmatically, how would we go about "resisting" this "misguided process"? Do we just show up anyway? That would most likely result in some unpleasant scenes between us and the other Anglican members present, with our ecumenical partners looking on. I'm not so sure that kind of confrontation is a good way to convince other faith traditions that we have something of value to add to the conversation. It would more likely accentuate the pitfalls of following our lead.

So, do we create our own ecumenical dialogues? Actually, we are already in separate conversations with most of those faith traditions represented in the "official" Anglican dialogues, so there's no point in reinventing the wheel. However, to hold up our ecumenical discussions as some kind of equivalant to those going on within the Communion would suggest a move towards developing an alternative Communion. That would be using the same tactic that GAFCON and the Global South are well known for putting in play. Personally, I find such threats of abandoning Canterbury rather childish. I would hope TEC will not resort to such immature tactics.

I wonder if there might not be a way for the members of these ecumenical dialogues to invite those excluded by Canterbury to be present as "consultants." Dr. Williams introduced this possibility when he "demoted" Dr. Grieb to the status of "consultant" on the Unity, Faith and Order Commission. Perhaps the various parties involved in the ecumenical dialogues can take the initiative and, regardless of what Dr. Williams or Canon Kearon have to say about the matter, express their desire for TEC to be represented in their conversations, even if our role has to be redefined to satisfy the control needs of the leadership of the Anglican Communion.

I suspect that there is already some kind of formal response from TEC being crafted. A little bird, with no purple feathers, btw, told me that the House of Bishops had some kind of discussion yesterday. I don't know what the specific issue was, but I'd bet it had something to do with these attempted Pentecost punishments. Watch for a statement from the Bishops soon.

I think this attempt by Canterbury to assert his authority, and to apparently side with those who are attempting to drag Anglicanism into the literalist sola scriptura camp, requires a response. But I'm personally rather conflicted as to what form that response should take.

J.

About This Awful Commenting Tool

There's been a few complaints about the Echo (JS-Kit) commenting tool I'm now using. There's been enough of them that I feel it's time to offer you an explanation.

Back in 2003, when I opened this place, Blogger had no commenting feature. The commenting tool from Blogger (Google) was not offered until May, 2004. But, I wanted comments in 2003, so I went looking around. The blogs that I visited used various comenting services. After some time of reviewing options, I finally settled on Haloscan.

Haloscan had many features that I really liked, such as being able to edit the template and a simple one page review of all new posts that made moderation much easier than the new product Blogger came up with a year later. So, I stuck with Haloscan.

About three years later, this site started hopping. It was not unusual to get 300 comments for every post. Haloscan served me well during those busy years.

Six months ago, I was informed that Haloscan had been purchased by JS-Kit (Echo). Since Haloscan comments cannot be imported to Blogger, if I didn't want to lose 6 years of comments, I had to go with the new company. I was offered no other option.

JS-Kit refers to this as an "upgrade." Their model, which I'm sure many of you recognize, is the way comments are handled on Facebook. It is less than satisfactory.

To add insult to injury, as a "Haloscan" customer, I am not given any access to templates or other codes. Nothing, except one brief line of script, was added to my Blogger template. They are using the existing Haloscan code. So, there is no way for me to modify anything. Apparently, JS-Kit figures I'm lucky to have what I've got. I've asked them when I'll be given access to my template. I've yet to get an answer, except, "we're still upgrading."

So, out of frustration, and in response to some of your complaints, I went surfing for some hacks. I found one that puts the comments in descending order, as they used to be with Haloscan. And I found a way to block the feature that collapsed long threads, requiring you to click a link to expand it. That should make things a little less confusing.

I have still not solved the problem of deleting a comment without those below it disappearing. That is a very strange feature that I'll have to work on.

I also want to change the color scheme, enlarge the font, and get rid of all that cutesy crap (facebook links etc.). And yes, JCF, we MUST get the "preview" feature back! But I'll have to wait until I'm deemed worthy to access my own template to do all that, I guess.

So, the short version is that I did not choose this awful commenting tool. I chose Haloscan before Blogger had a comments feature. To avoid losing thousands of comments, I'm stuck with Echo, who bought out Haloscan.

Hope this answers some of your questions. I'm sorry folks. Be patient. I'll eventually work out all the bugs.

J.

The Pentecost Punishments Move from Threat to Reality

We recently discussed Canterbury's Pentecost Punishments, in which Dr. Williams outlined his intention to discipline those Provinces who ignored the requested moratoria regarding consecrating gay bishops, same sex blessings and border crossings. Apparently, these were not idle threats. From a statement by the Rev. Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion:

...Last Thursday I sent letters to members of the Inter Anglican ecumenical dialogues who are from the Episcopal Church informing them that their membership of these dialogues has been discontinued. In doing so I want to emphasise again as I did in those letters the exceptional service of each and every person to that important work and to acknowledge without exception the enormous contribution each person has made.

I have also written to the person from the Episcopal Church who is a member of the Inter Anglican Standing Commission on Unity Faith and Order (IASCUFO), withdrawing that person’s membership and inviting her to serve as a Consultant to that body.

I have written to the Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada to ask whether its General Synod or House of Bishops has formally adopted policies that breach the second moratorium in the Windsor Report, authorising public rites of same-sex blessing.

At the same time I have written to the Primate of the Southern Cone, whose interventions in other provinces are referred to in the Windsor Continuation Group Report asking him for clarification as to the current state of his interventions into other provinces.

These are the actions which flow immediately from the Archbishop’s Pentecost Letter...

So, three sacrificial lambs, one for each of the three moratoria, have been chosen; TEC for consecrating Bp. Glasspool, the ACC for same sex blessings, and the Southern Cone for border crossings.

The first interesting thing to note is that it is only TEC that has been requested to remove its members from the ecumenical dialogues and the Unity, Faith and Order Commission. Canada and the Southern Cone were simply sent letters asking for further clarification.

Perhaps TEC has been singled out because of the wording of Canterbury, in which he spoke of "...provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria..." (emphasis added). I suppose that the consent process following the election of Bp. Glasspool might be considered a "formal" adoption of a policy that breaches one of the requested moratoria. Yet, one would think that a letter requesting clarification from TEC, rather than this punitive action, would have been the expected next step. After all, is there any question as to what the Southern Cone has been doing? They are sheltering entire schismatic dioceses, and accepting deposed bishops into their House of Bishops. Yet they receive a courtesy letter.

Perhaps Dr. Williams figures TEC can take the heat? We've survived such stunts in the past. Or maybe he thinks we are so desperate to remain in the Communion, at least until the lawsuits involving the properties stolen by the schismatics are resolved, that we'll accept quietly whatever he dishes out?

In the end, these punishments appear to be symbolic. The removal from two Anglican bodies is not terribly significant. And it seems clear that one Province for each of the moratoria was selected as an example that Canterbury "really means it, this time." I would certainly hope that Canterbury doesn't imamgine that TEC is the only Province consecrating gay bishops, or that the ACC is the only Province doing same sex blessings. If so, he might want to take a closer look in his own backyard, as well as in a few other Provinces in which such things happen on a regular basis. And why is the Southern Cone the example of border crossing, and not Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya? Is the message here that it is open season on North and South America, but Africa gets a free pass?

Over on The Lead, Jim Naughton makes a very astute observation. If Dr. Williams is going to start asserting the kind of power some hoped a new Covenant would grant him, why do we need a Covenant? And if you were concerned about the Covenant excluding some folks, your concerns have been justified. If this is an example of what "enforcement" under a Covenant will be like, there will indeed be a new "second class" membership within the Communion, with the literalist "sola scriptura" gang deciding who is in and who is out.

If this is an indication of who will and who will not be represented at the next Primates' meeting remains to be seen. However, if the Americans are excluded, I seem to hear an old line from our nation's short history ringing in my ears...something about taxation and representation?

Another bit of trivia from our history comes to mind as well. This one is a line from a doctrine that is known rather well on this side of the pond:

...the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers...

Perhaps this might be an opportunity to work towards common goals with the Southern Cone against the European powers? Who knows. Call me a romantic if you must, but, yes, I believe in miracles!

J.

Cantebury's Pentecost Punishments

Dr. Rowan Williams has released his Pentecost Letter. Here's one section worth considering more closely:

...I am therefore proposing that, while these tensions remain unresolved, members of such provinces – provinces that have formally, through their Synod or House of Bishops, adopted policies that breach any of the moratoria requested by the Instruments of Communion and recently reaffirmed by the Standing Committee and the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order (IASCUFO) – should not be participants in the ecumenical dialogues in which the Communion is formally engaged. I am further proposing that members of such provinces serving on IASCUFO should for the time being have the status only of consultants rather than full members. This is simply to confirm what the Communion as a whole has come to regard as the acceptable limits of diversity in its practice. It does not alter what has been said earlier by the Primates’ Meeting about the nature of the moratoria: the request for restraint does not necessarily imply that the issues involved are of equal weight but recognises that they are ‘central factors placing strains on our common life’, in the words of the Primates in 2007. Particular provinces will be contacted about the outworking of this in the near future...

Keep in mind that there were three requested moratoria:
1. Consecration of Bishops living in a same gender union
2. Permission for Rites of Blessing for Same Sex unions
3. Interventions in Provinces

Using those criteria, Dr. Williams' "punishments" would impact the following Provinces:

Southern Cone
Nigeria
Uganda
Kenya
Rwanda
Canada
TEC

Representatives of those Provinces will no longer be allowed to participate in formal ecumenical dialogues or in the Inter-Anglican Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order.

As far as which specific individuals this "sentence" will effect, Mark Harris has compiled a helpful list. Here are those who will be moved from full membership to consultant status on the Standing Commission on Unity, Faith and Order:

The Ven. Professor Dapo Asaju, Nigeria
The Revd Dr Katherine Grieb, Episcopal Church (USA)
The Revd Dr Edison Muhindo Kalengyo, Uganda
The Rt Revd Tito Zavala, Bishop of Chile, Southern Cone

Now, regarding those who broke the third moratorium regarding border crossings. There can be little question that Rwanda and Nigeria will be included on the list of those to be punished, due to their continued close affiliation with the AMiA and CANA. There will be those who will claim that Uganda, Kenya, and the Southern Cone should not be on that list, as they have stopped their interventions and have released their American holdings to ACNA. This is fine rhetoric, but there's little evidence to suggest that it is true. My understanding is that if ACNA is recognized as a legitimate Province in the Communion, the pillaging Provinces will then hand over their foreign loot. As of now, a form of "dual citizenship" is being utilized while the status of ACNA remains in limbo.

As a sidenote, the fact that those Provinces engaged in border crossings appear to be included among those who are being "punished" by Canterbury suggests that there is a very big "if" remaining regarding ACNA ever becoming legitimate. It is primarily made up of those whose early strategy was the use of off shore bishops, even after every Instrument of Communion clearly asked them to stop doing it. Such unethical behavior may end up being a bigger hurdle than they anticipated back in 2003 when they launched this plot.

Dr. Williams notes that the three moratoria, although not having "equal weight," are still "central factors placing strains on our common life." I would agree that they are not equal in weight. How can one compare the consecration of a duly elected and consented bishop to a foreign bishop entering a TEC diocese and claiming ownership of some of their congregations? The first may represent a cultural difference of opinion. But it is difficult for some of us to understand the second as anything but a blatant act of theft.

That is my perspective of the matter. Having an offshore bishop waiting in the wings has thwarted most attempts for those congregations troubled by various matters to have further conversations with the leadership of TEC. Now, too many faithful Episcopalians have been forced out of their buildings and continue to worship in rented space because a majority chose to align themselves with some foreign bishop.

Some may consider the accusation of "theft" to be too strong. I stand by it, just the same. I've talked and prayed with some of those displaced by the plotting of extremists. Seeing their pain and confusion has been cause for me to become more and more outraged by these pillagers in purple. I am convinced that we will one day see clearly that all this manuevering was primarily a property and power grab, with little to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

However, if you want a more moderate view of why these border crossings are "central factors placing strains on our common life," here is how such acts were described by The Windsor Continuation Group:

...There are growing patterns of congregationalism throughout the communion at parochial, diocesan and provincial level: for example, parishes feel free to choose from whom they will accept episcopal ministry; bishops feel free to make decisions of great controversy without reference to existing collegial structures. Primates make provision for episcopal leadership in territories outside their own Province. The symptoms of this breakdown of trust are common to all parties in the current situation - felt and expressed by conservative and liberal alike...

...There has been development from individual members leaving congregations, to congregations leaving parishes and dioceses, to dioceses seeking to leave provinces. Parties within The Episcopal Church have sought allies within the wider Communion, who are seen as only too willing to respond. Litigation and interventions have become locked into a vicious spiral - each side seeing the actions of the other as provoking and requiring response. At this time, it would appear that the divisions in the United States are playing out in the wider Communion, and already impacting in Canada...

...It is in respect to the third moratorium (on interventions) that there has been the least discernable response. As noted in the JSC Report of October 2007, there has apparently been an increase in interventions since the adoption of the Windsor/Dromantine recommendations by the unanimous voice of the primates. The adoption of dioceses into the Province of the Southern Cone, inconsistent with the Constitutions both of TEC and the Southern Cone; the consecration of bishops for ministry in various forms by different Provinces and the vocal support of such initiatives by the Primates associated with the Gafcon have all taken place, apparently in contradiction of the 2005 Dromantine Statement, although in each case, the primates involved would cite a conviction that their actions were provisional, born of necessity, and reactive rather than taking the initiative. From their perspective, some of the intervening primates have indicated that they will hand back those within their care as soon as the underlying causes have been resolved...

The border crossings are a big deal, if others want to recognize it or not. Actually, for some of us, it is a "deal breaker." Having to take former Episcopalians to court is always a sad thing, but until that third moratorium is taken seriously, as faithful stewards, we are left with no other choice. You want the lawsuits to end? Then stop trying to steal property. It's really that simple.

A couple of other things to note. Dr. Williams suggested that he didn't have the authority to make the decision regarding the participation of the Provinces who have not abided by the moratoria in the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee. He was intentionally vague as to how he would deal with the invitations to the next Primates Meeting.

But let's say that the Provinces who have not abided by the moratoria are given "observer" status. That happened once before. But note that now it would not simply be TEC and the ACC who would be asked to step down. Rwanda and Nigeria most certainly, and Kenya, Southern Cone and Uganda most likely, would be included in the list of second class Anglicans. That is, of course, if those bodies decide to follow the lead of Dr. Williams.

The other thing that I find myself wondering is "So what?" We've seen something like this (the two tiered thing) coming for a long time. What if we remove ourselves from the Instruments of Communion? We could still be present as "observers, and constant reminders of the price one must sometimes pay for justice. We could continue to be a voice for the disenfranchised within the Communion while wearing an observer badge, could we not? Let the leadership structures do what they must. I don't think the price is too high.

I'm not suggesting isolationism. I'm suggesting that such punishments may be an opportunity for an even greater witness to the world of the radically inclusive love of God made known to us through Jesus Christ. Don't avoid the punishment. Embrace it. Proclaim it.

There will be those who will have some anxiety about TEC being removed from membership in all the Instruments. That would have the appearance of TEC no longer being able to consider herself to be Anglican. And that would leave a void, which ACNA would love to step into. I no longer see that as a serious possibility. ACNA has been sufficiently revealed as part of the problem, not part of the solution. TEC is seen by some to be part of the problem as well, but the nature of our problems are quite different. By recognizing ACNA, the leaders of the Anglican Communion would be sanctioning Primates pillaging parishes in their own backyards. That notion will give them great pause. If they must choose between two problems, I think it is safe to surmise that TEC will be their choice for some time in the forseeable future.

Your thoughts?

J.

CREDO Brings "Strength for the Journey" to Pittsburgh

Lionel Deimel attended a conference offered by CREDO this past weekend. This was an attempt to assist Episcopalians in the four dioceses that have recently experienced the trauma of schism. Here's part of what Lionel had to say about it:

...Irrespective of how “useful” I ultimately find SFTJ to have been, I am grateful to The Episcopal Church for recognizing the stresses on the people in “reorganizing” dioceses and for its willingness to invest in trying to ameliorate the burdens those loyal Episcopalians have taken on. We who carried the standard of The Episcopal Church during the dark days of the Bob Duncan episcopate did not always feel supported, appreciated, or even heard by our church...

...My purpose here is neither to describe fully nor to evaluate SFTJ. Instead, I want to make others in the church aware of what their church is doing for those of us who have experienced schism in our dioceses. I also want to express our gratitude for that effort and encourage our brothers and sisters in the dioceses of San Joaquin, Quincy, and Fort Worth to take advantage of the opportunity that the church is offering...

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh offers more about this program, with a few pictures, here.

It's good to see that CREDO and The Church Pension Fund are responding to this great need. In my opinion, the response is a bit late, but better late than never.

Everyone I've ever talked with about CREDO has spoken very highly of their programs. They seem to meet a real need within the Church. My experience has been that, for various reasons, no other entity seems to be up to the task of responding to the needs of our members in the four reorganizing dicoeses. Kudos to CREDO and The Church Pension Fund for stepping up and filling that void by offering assistance to our brothers and sisters in Pittsburgh, San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Quincy.

Here's the schedule for the next three "Strength for the Journey" events:

June 4-5 in the Diocese of San Joaquin

June 11-12 in the Diocese of Quincy

Sept. 24-25 in the Diocese of Fort Worth

If you're in one of those dioceses, set those dates aside now. It sounds like it will be a very helpful program.

Pray for the members of those dioceses.

Pray for the Church.

J.

When is a Bishop Not a Bishop?

Last month, our friend Lisa pointed us to Integrity's announcement of Bishop Christopher Ssenyonjo's speaking tour.

Who is Bp. Ssenyonjo? See for yourself:

Bishop Christopher Ssenyonjo from Claiming the Blessing on Vimeo.

In 2006, Abp. Henry Orombi of the Anglican Church of Uganda deposed Bp. Ssenyonjo for his support of gay and lesbian Christians.

It must be a slow news day over on the extremist sites, as, for some reason, one of the more shrill voices decided to wait until now to launch a rant about Bp. Ssenyonjo's speaking tour, even though Lisa's post is now over a month old.

So what caused them to get their shorts in a wad this time? Apparently because Ssenyonjo is still referred to as a "bishop" in the speaking tour annoucement, even though he was deposed.

Hmmm...I've got two problems with that point.

First of all, by that logic, one might say that Bob Duncan, Jack Iker and David Schofield should not be considered "real bishops," since they also have been deposed. Actually, I think there are more valid reasons to question the orders of those three, as they have been involved for some years in the attempted theft of properties. Compare that to Bp. Ssenyonjo's "crime" of refusing to be a bigot.

Secondly, claiming that you can somehow "remove" the indelible mark of ordination is a rather Protestant notion, one that I personally question. For that reason, I tend to give Bps. Duncan, Iker and Schofield the benefit of the doubt. They are scoundrels, in my opinion, but I tend to still think of them as bishops.

So, at the risk of exposing some of us as unrepentant Donatists, I want to ask the following question:

Whose authority would you recognize? A deposed bishop who attempted schism and tried to run off with all the silver, or one who spoke out for equal rights at great risk to his own safety?

Bishop Ssenyonjo's speaking tour will come to New York and Washington DC next month. I plan on attending at least one of the events. I'll let you know which one soon, in case some of you might want to join me.

Here are the options:

Sunday, June 6, 10:30am - Preaching at St. Luke in the Fields, 487 Hudson Street, New York, NY 10014.

Tuesday, June 8, 12:30pm - Conversation with Bishop Gene Robinson, Center for American Progress, 1333 H Street NW, Washington DC 20005.

Sunday, June 13, 11:00am - Preaching at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine, 1047 Amsterdam Ave New York, NY 10025.

Monday, June 14, 9:00am - Ecumenical Consultation on Decriminalizing Homosexuality, Church at the United Nations, 777 United Nations Plaza, New York, NY 10016

J.

What Can We Say?

In our previous conversation, we discussed seeking to understand those who have no belief in God. If you read that post, please take a moment to also read the comments. They offer some clarifications and additional information that you might find helpful.

In regards to how we might respond to those who don’t believe, there are quite a few popular approaches. There is the ontological argument, the cosmological argument and the teleological argument, among many others.

These more well known arguments make many good points, but to me, they are more problematic than helpful. They are structured for intellectual debates, not dialogues seeking understanding. Besides that, speaking personally, they do not really touch on the primary reasons I’m a believer.

The challenges from atheists I’ve encountered in our conversations about God have been cause for me to honestly question many of my assumptions. Over time, it felt like those conversations slowly peeled away the outer layers of my beliefs, until not much was left. Not much, but still something. Here’s two of the things I found under all those layers.

I believe in God because of my personal experiences. Throughout my life, I have had encounters with God, and many of them have been transformational. There is little doubt, to me, that those encounters have “saved” me from giving in to some of my more antisocial inclinations. Beyond that, to borrow from Jack Nicholson in As Good as It Gets, my experiences of God have “made me want to be a better man.” Because of the grace, the unmerited favor, I have experienced in my life, I have a desire to be a conduit of that grace in the lives of others.

There is a formal argument that uses this approach. It is called The Argument from Religious Experience (ARE). Here is what Keith Ward, until recently Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, has to say about this approach:

…There are personal experiences, known to all of us in a direct and natural way, that do not fall within the domain of the natural sciences. The scientific domain is that of publicly observable objects in shared public space. Since science does not deal with personal experiences, it cannot itself give an account of what they are, or of how they relate to objects in physical space. Science itself cannot provide a comprehensive world-view, because there are aspects of reality with which it does not deal. The most obvious aspects of this sort are personal experiences, and it is precisely in such experiences that such notions as value and purpose have their home…

In his book The Case for Religion, Ward also argues that since experience is beyond the confines of empirical evidence, it should not be subjected to the same demands we expect of physical evidence. I’m not so sure I agree with that point.

I would suggest that personal experience is indeed evidence, but not as the term is used in the scientific method. Instead, it seems to me that personal experience is indeed convincing evidence, if it is compared to the evidence often found in a courtroom. In other words, our personal experience is our testimony.

Now, one of the challenges to ARE is that it is too subjective to be of value. This is a valid criticism. However, in our day to day lives, we accept many subjective perceptions as true, without testing them every time. Richard Swinburne calls this the principle of credulity. If someone tells us that they saw a tree, unless we have strong reasons to question their perceptions, we usually accept that as a true statement. When God experiences are challenged, and other experiences are not, it suggests a bias on the part of the challenger.

These personal experiences do not stand by themselves. We have the “testimonies” of millions throughout history who speak of similar experiences. It is at this point that I want to return to the bible (which I promised I’d get back to eventually in the last post).

The stories in the bible can be viewed as further “testimonies” of experiences of God. Of course the ways these experiences are described was influenced by the time frame and cultural setting in which the authors lived. Consequently, there is much in their stories that we view as not just primitive, but even repulsive. For me, the fact that those “ugly bits” still remain, and have not been edited out, gives these stories more authenticity. I would imagine that my stories of experiences of God will be equally repulsive to future generations. Referring to the comment in the last post, I do not find value in the bible because it is an instruction manual. The scriptures are of value to me because they offer testimonies of God’s presence in the lives of those who lived in ancient times.

So, we have the testimony from scripture, the testimony from the historical tradition, and the testimony of those who experience God in our own day. Subjective or not, unless one believes that the millions of people who have had these experiences are all delusional, I consider these testimonies to be fairly strong evidence for God.

Beyond the subjective nature of religious experience, another criticism of this approach is that the various religious traditions can’t agree on the meaning of these experiences. As a matter of fact, there are divisions within the traditions themselves regarding how such experiences might be appropriately expressed. Although the ways religious experiences are articulated are quite diverse, I think most of those differences can be attributed to cultural and language variations more than anything else.

If you consider the mystics of the different traditions, you find very little variation in the experiences they describe, regardless as to if they are Jewish, Sufi, Buddhist or Christian. The mystic has stripped away the layers, and stands naked before this “Something More” that my tradition calls God. Usually such experiences are beyond words or thoughts. But, in order to communicate to others the content of such experiences, the mystic is forced to use the symbols and words of the religious tradition that they know best, which is often a matter of their cultural setting rather than a choice of “right beliefs” over “wrong beliefs.” So, the mystic is often very conservative, in that they affirm the tradition in which they dwell. But at the same time, most mystics are also rebels, pushing the boundaries of those same traditions. My reason for bringing up the mystics is that I think it is their tradition that most clearly suggests that the various faith traditions are actually struggling to find a way to put into words very similar religious experiences. I don’t think the fact that many of the official teachings of the various traditions contradict one another is a good enough reason to reject the strong possibility that the experiences from which those teachings have sprung have much in common.

Now, there are certainly some “religious experiences” that need to be challenged, especially those which cause harm to others. That is why that even though I personally give a high priority to the evidence from religious experience, I don’t think, by itself, it is enough.

Which leads me to the second reason I am a God believer. This one does not engage science or philosophy. It is really not even open for scrutiny by either logic or reason. I am a believer because I long to be in relationship, not only with God, but with other people, who often become, for me, “God with skin on.”

I was struck by a line in last week’s Gospel lesson from John. Jesus is being questioned, and a group is demanding that he speak plainly, and tell them if he is the messiah or not. Jesus responded by saying “You do not believe because you do not belong…” We usually think that you believe, and then join a community of like-minded believers. Jesus turned that around. It is because we belong that we believe. The beliefs spring from being in community…in “communion”…with others.

That has certainly been my experience. It is from being forced to go against my natural inclination to be a bit of a hermit, and engage the larger community, that I have grown in my understanding of what it means to be a Christian. Beyond that, once I came to understand that it wasn’t enough for me to function in that community as a servant, but realized the need for me to allow others to serve me, that I began to see evidence for God in the faces of those all around me.

Also, it is through belonging to such a community that my experiences are given a very necessary check and balance. As I share what I have understood the meaning to be of a particular experience, the community, who has also had such experiences, can either offer words of encouragement or caution. Their collective insight can rein in the individual who might do something foolish or harmful because they understood that “God told me to do it.”

Experiences of God, both in the mystical experience and the community experience, are first and foremost about relationships, not right beliefs.

It's about relationships. It's about belonging.

I wonder how well our communities welcome everyone, regardless of their beliefs, or lack thereof, and make an effort to let them know that they belong, and are valued? Or, do we, perhaps unconsciously, have a hierarchy of belonging, with only those with the right beliefs (which usually means “beliefs that agree with me”) allowed into the inner circle? Something to think about.

Experience and belonging. Those are the keys to my belief in God. Now enough from me. Tell me why you believe, or disbelieve in God?

J.

Listening to Atheists

Today, I'm going to ramble a bit about a topic which has fascinated me over the last few months. The topic is understanding those who have no belief in God.

A couple of years ago, I finally admitted to myself that I really had little understanding of that view of reality. I've always had a rather strong belief in God, and assumed that most everyone else did as well. I was 19 before my God belief was ever seriously challenged.

Now, this doesn't mean I had never encountered any atheists before that. But, as is usually the case, they chose not to challenge me. Instead, they remained politely silent until the subject of the conversation shifted. Now the times have changed. With the popularity of authors like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, more and more atheists seem to be revealing themselves. It turns out that there are many more than we thought there were. Perhaps that has been the case for a long time, but we just didn't recognize it.

Why should this matter to me? One of the frustrations I run into a lot in discussions about "church growth" is the theory of "build it and they will come." If we just make our church more welcoming, more inclusive, etc. etc., then we'll bring folks in. And yes, that is true, to a point. You will attract those who perhaps have some background in Christianity but quit being active in church for one reason or another. And you may attract those who are "spiritual seekers," those open to the quest for that elusive "something more." And you may even draw in a few folks who like the music or the architecture.

But, if you're trying to attract those who have rarely been in a church, those whose experience of Christianity is limited to the stories of the bible and the televangelists, you're missing your target audience. They consider Christians to be engaging in "wishful thinking" at best, and as "delusional and dangerous" at worst. Regardless of what we do, to imagine these folks are going to wake up one Sunday and say "I think I'll go to church today" is indeed quite delusional, I'd say.

So what can we do? Well, I'm working on that. I've read of some ideas on how to engage this particular growing group of non-believers, but they didn't seem very convincing to me. So, I've been making an effort to do my homework. I've been trying to wrap my head around the mindset of those who have no belief in God. I've been attempting to listen, in the hopes of understanding.

I've had a few opportunities to seek such an understanding in my daily encounters with other people, but the majority of my conversations have happened online. As with most online conversations, you have to make a few assumptions before you can glean anything of value. First, if the person is using a nickname, you initially take everything with a grain of salt. You also recognize that the norms of civil discourse will often be thrown out the window. Folks are going to cuss you out, call you names, etc. That comes with the territory.

So, I've been talking with a few atheists for a few months now. I'm still trying to piece together the various things I've learned, but here's a few, in no particular order:

1. Most atheists, except the ones who are very young and just like to start flame wars, are highly educated. Not only do they know their science, they also know their bible. Unfortunately, there is often an underlying assumption that you cannot be both scientifically knowledgable and a Christian simultaneously. If you are a Christian, you haven't seriously studied the science. In other words, there is a bias that most Christians are "intellectually challenged." If we're not just plain dumb, we're too lazy to do the work necessary to find the "real" answers.

In listening, I've learned more than I ever wanted to know about evolution, as one example. That is another assumption among many atheists; all Christians are creationists, and deny evolution. As a result, I've heard many, many, many lectures of evolution. Sometimes I find the topic fascinating. But, as one who is not all that interested in the subject, after about the 25th time, I started to tune out.

In summary, the first point is that it is a mistake to consider atheists simply uninformed. The surprise is that is their perception of us theists! A side point is that once you get over that surprise, if your intention is sincerely to listen in order to understand, you'll recognize that you can learn a lot from these folks. That is cause to drop the assumption that you have the Truth that they need, and then move from a debate kind of conversation to a sincere form of dialogue.

Keep in mind, at this point, I'm not talking about conversions. That's another conversation. I'm just seeking understanding.

2. The assumption among many atheists that I've encountered is that all Christians believe the bible literally. Along with that is the notion that Christians see the bible as some kind of divine instruction manual. This is what leads to so many conversations about evolution. The assumption is if they can get a theist to question the creation stories in Genesis, or at least admit the world is more than a few thousand years old, then they have proved their point. The bible is in error, so everything in it no longer has authority.

According to the US Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007 by Pew Forum, 33% of US Christians believe the bible literally. Among the mainline churches, that drops to 22%. Note that since this survey involved 35,000 interviews, we can assume it is somewhat accurate. When I point this statistic out to some atheists, they make yet another assumption, then claiming that I am throwing out the bible, and so cannot be a "real" Christian. That usually causes me to chuckle, as I've heard that very same claim more than a few times from the other side!

The positive aspect of such discussions, for me, is that it has encouraged me to wrestle with aspects of the bible that are rarely challenged in church circles. I don't believe that non-literalists throw out the bible. That is an inaccurate assumption, for reasons I'll get into eventually. But, I do think that most Christians tend to gloss over the bits of the bible that those outside the church find not only challenging, but downright repulsive. Consequently, we are usually unprepared when asked to respond to difficult parts of a text.

3. Claims of "supernatural" events really bother most atheists that I've talked with. To them, it is the same as claiming unicorns or Harry Potter are real. It is often referred to as the "God of the gaps." If you don't know how something happened, just fill in the blank with some supernatural act of God.

For the most part, the atheists who have a strong reaction to the supernatural are empiricists. If there is not testable evidence, then the thing does not exist. I've been asked to "show the evidence" hundreds of times. It is by far the the most common argument against a belief in God.

Now, this is where things get a bit difficult. These "empirical" arguments are not new. To a great degree, they are a rehashing of Plato and Aristotle. As I'm trying to stay in the vernacular here, and am admittedly not the most well informed source regarding either science or philosophy, I'm going to need the help of those who are more knowledgable about those disciplines. Please feel free to correct my fuzzy thinking or inaccurate paraphrasing in the comments.

Empiricism is a tool of science, but the two are not synonymous. Empiricism, to simplify the term, claims that knowledge is derived from sensory data. Although the scientific method includes the need of empirical evidence, it also incorporates the use of theoretical methods. A minor point, but since I'm now shifting to primarily talking about science, I felt that clarification to be important.

It is also important to always remember that what we call "science" is not some "thing" out there. It is a tool, a mental construct, fully idenitified as the "scientific method, a procedure to search for cause and effect relationships in nature. It is the best tool we have to gain knowledge of the physical world.

Forgetting that science is a tool can lead to some very silly statements, such as "science is wrong" or "science is bad." The method itself incorporates the "iterative process", used when new information or thinking is suggested, which would be cause to repeat steps of the method. So, claiming science is "wrong" assumes that the method arrives at some static absolute truth, which is not how it works. When claiming science is bad (nuclear power, climate change, etc), one has attached a moral value to the scientific method. The reality is that science is morally neutral. The only morality within science is that brought in by the scientists themselves, and those who use the results of their research.

Sometimes I encounter those who will claim that the scientific method is the only source of all knowledge. That is the point in which I begin to disagree. Show me the empiricial evidence for love, or beauty, or art or even goodness for that matter. No, I cannot agree that love is an emotion, or a chemical reaction. And my experience of beauty is not limited to symmetrically pleasing lines. While I agree that the scientific method is indeed the best tool we have to understand the physical world, it seems to me that it has limits.

That concludes my initial thoughts about my recent conversations with atheists. I was going to continue with some suggestions of what we might have to say in such conversations, but this post has already become much too long. Watch for the next installment, in which I'll attempt to say a bit about inductive logic, tacit knowledge, and the importance of community.

J.

Abp. Orombi (May Have) Resigned From the Joint Standing Committee

Abp. Henry Orombi has written a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He includes the following pronouncements:

1. The Primates are the only authority he recognizes within the Anglican Communuion (although he seems to have no problem with attempting to sneak his own irregular deputies into meetings of the other Instruments).

2. He will not attend any meetings at which representatives from the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada are present (well, we've heard this threat before, and in the end, it was all just bluster...so we'll see).

3. Anglicanism is a church of bishops (perhaps revealing his real problem with the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee? Heaven forbid that God speak through someone not wearing a purple shirt).

4. He stands "with my brother Primate, Bishop Mouneer Anis, in his courageous decision to resign from the Standing Committee" (is this a resignation? Perhaps. Or perhaps he is keeping his options open?).

5. He demands an immediate meeting of the Primates, and insists that TEC and the ACC be excluded.

When I consider this letter in its entirety, I am struck by its self-righteous and arrogant tone. Abp. Orombi blames everyone else for "the Communion...moving away further and further into darkness" and ignores any role he has played in the creation of the current chaos.

Perhaps Abp. Orombi really is so vain, and has surrounded himself only with those who encourage such vanity, resulting in him being oblivious to the role he has played in causing the current unpleasantness. Perhaps we can assist him in regaining a bit of Christian humility.

We might start back in 2004 with the role of Uganda in one of the earliest attempted thefts of property belonging to the Episcopal Church. St. James, Newport Beach was one of these early "trial balloon" attempts to steal property. The choice of that congregation brought to light the involvement of extremist groups such as the American Anglican Council and the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

When asked about these attempted thefts by Uganda, Abp. Orombi made the following statement:

..."Look at it this way: If a child is running away from home, the first question that must be asked is, why is he running away?" said Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi of Uganda, a vocal critic of the Episcopal Church, in a telephone interview. "We didn't look for them or hunt for them. We are responding to a need."

Such attempts to look so innocent fall flat if you look just a few inches under the surface.

For instance, in 2004, a memo entitled Draft Proposal for Overseas AEO was written by Alison Barfoot to those planning an attempted coup (the efforts of a small group of extremists to take over the Episcopal Church). It spells out quite clearly the method by which a congregation can be hijacked and put under the authority of an offshore bishop. Here's part of it:

... The question then becomes: Which offshore diocese? And how is that diocese and bishop selected? The proposed governing principle would be that these connections follow the line of Pre-existing relationships. If a priest does not already have a pre-existing relationship with an offshore bishop who is willing to participate in this process, then a match needs to be made...

Barfoot, who authored this proposal, became Abp. Orombi's international relations assistant that same year.

So, the author of a proposal to use offshore bishops becomes the assistant to the Primate of Uganda. When a parish with such celebrities as David Anderson and Howard Ahmanson connected to it decides to try to jump ship, who scoops them up? The Anglican Church of Uganda. Imagine that.

The title of "international relations assistant" is unusual, and seems a bit extravagant for Uganda, a nation that faces so many other challenges. But, it makes more sense when you consider that the position is funded by American extremists:

A retired bishop in Uganda explained, "Americans send money to the archbishop's office, who later distributes [it] to dioceses." The Rev. Aaron Mwesigye, the provincial secretary in the Ugandan Archbishop Henry Orombi's office, confirmed this, saying that U.S. conservatives had been "contributing towards the renumeration and salaries of provincial staff since 1998." He added that "American conservatives provide money to Africans not as donors but as development partners in mission."

Of course the assesments from the more than 44 Episcopal congregations that Abp. Orombi has attempted to steal over the years has also added more than a bit to his treasury.

If pressed on this matter, no doubt Abp. Orombi will claim he has "handed over" those 44 congregations to ACNA (an entity that some, like myself, do not recognize as a valid institution). Sorry, Abp. Orombi, but handing over stolen goods to one of your accomplices does not absolve you of any responsibility for your crimes.

Besides these blatant thefts, which have been strongly condemned in every statement released by the Instruments, we also have the matter of Abp. Orombi's refusal to engage in any way in the "listening process" recommended by the Windsor Report and the Primates. Instead, he has chosen to fan the flames of homophobia, as can be seen in his most recent"position paper" in response to the proposed Ugandan Kill the Gays legislation. Apparently, although Abp. Orombi hesitates to support the death penalty, he affirms the "solution" of tossing all gays and lesbians into prison. Such Christian compassion, eh?

He continues to believe bizarre theories like this:

...I am appalled to learn that the rumours we have heard for a long time about homosexual recruiting in our schools and amongst our youth are true. I am even more concerned that the practice is more widespread than we originally thought...

Yet, when confronted by the violence against gays and lesbians in Uganda, fueled by his bigoted rhetoric, Abp. Orombi struggles to find a response:

...Orombi said he had never heard of people being tortured because of their homosexuality, that when he learned about incidents – from the western media – he was at a loss to understand why he had not heard of them. He refused to accept that persecuting and torturing gay people was done openly in Uganda...

So far, Orombi has not condemned those acts.

So, Archbishop, if you must resign from the Standing Committee, please say so clearly. And while you're at it, why don't you swallow a dose of humility, recognize that your own most unChristian behavior has contributed to this current chaos, and resign from some of your other lofty offices as well. I'm sure much of the world would sigh with relief.

J.

An Easter Sermon

Sometime during the night before that first Easter Sunday, something happened that transformed the world. We refer to this event as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This morning we have heard the biblical account of this transformational event. And if you listen carefully to the words of our liturgy, you were also hear our theological understanding of this miraculous event. Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, death, our ancient enemy has been cast down and trampled underfoot. We are assured that we too shall be raised up, and will be with God for all of eternity.

The biblical and theological understandings of what happened on this night are important. They give us a firm foundation on which to talk about the important implications of this transformational event.

However, sometimes I wonder how deeply our understanding of the resurrection actually impacts our day to day lives. So, tonight that’s what I want to talk about; how the resurrection can transform our daily lives.

To do that, rather than depend on scripture and theology, which as I mentioned you will fully receive within this liturgy, I want to zero in on our personal experiences of resurrection; the ways we die, and then are raised up as new beings in our daily lives.

In order to experience the resurrection as more than just some future event, in order to raised up into a new life in the here and now, there is first one difficult step that we have to be willing to take; we have to be willing to change.

William Auden wrote;

We would rather be ruined than changed
We would rather die in our dread
Than climb the cross of the moment
And see our illusions die.

Change can be difficult, and even frightening. It seems safer to just continue to respond to life; choosing this over that without a thought as to what drives our choices; what memories and images are stamped on our souls. But then, in the wee hours of the morning, we awaken to the feeling that something is missing, that something is not quite right. We feel that longing for the illusive "something more." It’s as if we want to go home, but we have forgotten the way.

But then, once in awhile, we catch sight of that elusive “something more.” Off in the distant, we glimpse the home we thought we lost. It is in these moments that we can be transformed, if we are willing to be changed. If we allow our illusions to die, something new may be raised up in their place.

Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about, by offering you a story from my own life.

A few years after we were married, my wife wanted to go to a church-sponsored weekend that was popular at the time. In order to go, I had to agree to attend a similar weekend for men. A weekend with a bunch of men who drove Volvos and talked exclusively of football and irrigation systems? I knew that this was a vision of hell that even Dante had been spared. Besides, I didn't have time for such foolishness. I was working full time on the loading dock, and taking classes at the University full time at night. And now I was supposed to drop everything to sit around and sing "Kum Baya" with a bunch of yuppies?

At the same time, this interest in the spiritual life on the part of my wife was a new and positive development. I went to the weekend, etching the marks of clawing fingernails the length of our driveway. Of course, I went for my wife. I knew I had no need for such drivel.

The event was actually worse than I expected. A series of long, boring talks interspersed with guitar music, clapping, laughter, and the periodic embrace of some weeping guy declaring, "I love ya, man!"

Two nights later, a meditation was offered in the darkened church. The only light was a small spot shining on the altar cross. At its conclusion, the men wandered out into the hall, where ice cream was being served. I could hear the laughter and the back slapping. I decided that the only way I was going to avoid these happy huggers was to just stay in the church.

Soon, I was alone. I knew they would let me stay there for as long as I wanted, if it appeared I was having some kind of "spiritual experience." So, I got on my knees, gazed on the cross, and assumed an "attitude of prayer." After a few minutes, I decided that it would be a shame to waste this opportunity, so I might as well go ahead and actually pray. I started out with praise and adoration, as I had been taught to do during my Pentecostal days, telling God how wonderful he was, and how much I loved him.

Then suddenly I stopped. What was I saying? Why should I declare my love for God? God could care less if I lived or died. The ugliness of my life was evidence of that. It was time to be honest. I now knew something about love, through being a husband and a father. That experience made it clear to me that I did not love God, and saw no indication that God loved me.

I got off my knees and sat in the pew. I still had to stay in the church, of course. I could hear a sing-along starting up in the next room. So, I just sat there, letting my mind wander, enjoying the quiet peacefulness of the place. Suddenly, in my mind's eye, I saw a neighbor who had lived next door to us when I was quite young. I saw her holding me as I cried. There was a vague memory of falling off my tricycle, or something similar. I had not thought of this woman for 25 years. Yet, here she was, in a vivid memory, floating across the screen before my mind's eye. What a strange thing.

The image shifted. I now saw my grandparents. Then a teacher from grade school who used to talk to me after class. Various aunts and uncles paraded by. Then the man who took me in and fed me when I was homeless. Next, a counselor from reform school. A professor from the University. Finally, I saw my wife, my daughters, and my newborn son.

I was on my knees again, although I didn't remember moving. What were all these images about? I wasn't sure. They all drew from me a similar feeling, however. The feeling of being loved; of being loved unconditionally.

It felt as if I were being held and slowly rocked, as a voice whispered, "Shh, it's okay now. I've always been here, and I've always loved you. I know you've been hurt. And I tried to show you that I cried with you, that I so deeply loved you. I tried to show you through all those you are remembering tonight."

I dared to believe this was real. This was a moment of transformation. I was loved. Even more importantly, I was worthy to be loved. That was over thirty years ago, yet rarely does a day pass when I don't remember that night; the night I stopped fighting to survive, and began to live.

You see, that night in that darkened church was a resurrection moment for me. My old way of viewing the world as a dark place full of disappointment and pain, was replaced by a new reality; the awareness that I was what I had always been intended to be, the beloved of God.

That resurrection moment changed everything. As I said, I dared to believe it was true. And that belief was based on more than simple wishful thinking. In that moment of glimpsing the depth of God’s love, I had discovered that elusive “something more” I had been seeking. I had found the way home.

In his book A Passion for Pilgrimage, Alan Jones explains it this way:

The memory that holy Week seeks to revive is one that lies deep within everyone. It is the memory of our beginnings. It is the memory that enables us to remember the painful things of our past without despair. The Great Memory is simply this; God has fallen in love with you and wants you to come home! Our first memory is God's love for us, and it is this memory that has been buried and repressed. Your first memory (if only you could get back to it) is that of being God's joy and delight. Why is it difficult to remember the joy of our beginnings in the heart of God? I wonder if it has something to do with our unwillingness to face the fact of our limited future? Memory and hope are intimately related. Perhaps we cannot recall the love that brought us into being in the first place, because we cannot imagine a love strong enough to pull us through the gates of death. I refuse to remember, because I dare not hope. I refuse to remember and I dare not hope, because I am frightened and angry because I will have to change.

Resurrection calls us to remember the love that brought us into being in the first place. Resurrection requires us to remember who we are, the beloved of God.

Since that night 30 years ago, I have had many resurrection moments. But, I would be misleading you if I did not admit that I’ve also had many moments, sometimes even days and weeks, when I’ve lost sight of God’s love.

What has allowed me to persevere in my Christian walk during those times when God’s love seemed so distant? My faith, derived from those previous experiences of resurrection.

St. Paul reminds us that all things work for good, for those who love God, for those who are called according to God’s purpose. All things work for good.

That means that even though I might experience life as a series of good times and bad times, as a progression of moments in which God seems close, and them seems so far away, I must constantly remind myself that God is moving with me through it all. And the movement of God is always from glory, to glory, redeeming all things for good. My response is to try to move with God, even if that means moving from faith to faith, trusting in God’s redemptive love.

God is moving among us right now. God is offering us the gift of a new life, the gift of resurrection. If we are willing to change, if we are willing to be transformed into a new creation, if we are willing to finally come home, say yes to God’s gift of grace, God’s unmerited favor, God’s redemptive love.

If we are willing to accept this gift, then we can move with God together. And together we can help those beyond these walls to find their way home.

Alleluia! Christ is risen!

J.

Understanding Anglicanism in Africa

Killing the Buddha is hosting an essay that is a "must read" for all Anglicans: Notes from the Tangled Anglican Web. The author, Mary-Jane Rubenstein, is Assistant Professor of Religion at Wesleyan University and the former Assistant Director of Religion and Public Life at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. Professor Rubentstein helps us sort out some of the complex dynamics at play within Anglicanism in Africa.

There are a number of noteworthy nuggets to be found in this essay. I'll just mention a couple.

Professor Rubenstein refers to the work of Ifi Amadiume; Male Daughters, Female Husbands: Sex and Gender in African Society:

...Focusing on the small Igbo town of Nnobi, Amadiume locates pre-colonial power in the goddess Idemili, who possessed certain women in order to make them her ekwe, or human representatives. The women this goddess chose were the most economically successful in the community—those who were prominent in the marketplace. And the surest way for a woman to become prominent in the marketplace was to take a few wives. These wives would manage the house and care for the children while their “female husband” focused on economic and political life—and again, those women who succeeded often gained access to considerable religious authority as well, becoming spokeswomen of the goddess.

Unsurprisingly, the first thing the British did after they had made significant inroads into the region was to ban all worship of the goddess and to insist that all households be composed of one man, one woman, and their biological children. From that moment on, a priestess or female husband was out of a job. From one angle, then, what the Anglican world is witnessing is not the imposition of some “primitive” mindset upon a “modern” Anglo-American Church, but rather, a redeployment of the modern code of gender and church hierarchy imposed upon West and East Africans at the turn of the century...

Rubenstein also identifies, correctly in my opinion, what it is that yokes the two groups that some African Anglican leaders, like Peter Akinola of Nigeria, consider to be the biggest threat to the Church. What is the common thread in Ankinola's defense of the Church against the dual threats of Islam and gay rights? A lack of a sufficient amount of machismo among Anglicans:

...What seems to connect the threat of homosexuality to the threat of Islam, then, is a crisis of Christian masculinity. It is not clear which came first—anxiety over virulent Western homosexuals or anxiety over violent African Muslims, but the two threats seem to echo and intensify one another...

We have certainly seen the result of Peter Akinola's understanding of what it means to be a "strong man." In "defense of the Church," he encouraged the incarceration of all gays. His "strong man" response to Islam was to incite violence against Muslims and be implicated in at least one massacre.

Akinola has now retired, but it appears that his successor is going to carry on the tradition of identifying Islam and the gays as the primary threats to the Church.

As a sidenote, in his inaugural address, linked above, Abp. OKoh made this curious comment:

...Do not be afraid of being called homophobic. It is a term designed to close down any expression of a contrary view. Respond by accusing them of gunaphobia – an inordinate fear of women and of relationships with women...

I would agree with the Archbishop on this point. I believe a fear of the feminine is indeed at the root of much of our disagreements, but perhaps not in the way he imagined this fear is manifested. To quote Nancy Myer Hopkins:

"What is driving the intensity of our current church infighting?" Is it really just about what people do sexually with each other?

Probably not. A more likely reason for a significant amount of the negativism is that same-sex relationships violate the rules laid down by all patriarchal cultures about how men and women should behave in relationship to one another. The same rules also narrowly define acceptable relationships between people of the same sex.

Looking through this lens, we can see that the offenses pile up rapidly. If a lesbian woman does not need a man to satisfy her, protect her and keep her in line, the threat of the feminine is there; if a gay man is able to access the feminine side of his being, his every move can be considered suspect and an affront to many. If long-term relationships between two people of the same sex toss the age-old formulas attached to male dominance and female submission out the window, what are we left with? And if we must allow people who are partnered in this way to live openly and with our blessing -- so that we can't pretend that this is not happening -- how offensive is that? It is only offensive if we continue to cling to a patriarchal framework which keeps the feminine in her "proper" place...

But, I'm now straying away from Professor Rubenstein's essay, which contains many more ideas worthy of discussion. Go read it. What other points jumped out at you?

J.