Do Justice and Love Mercy

Obadiah, an Anglican in Australia, recently left this comment:

...I will offer the testimony of a devout anglo catholic and liberal anglican friend of mine who has spent extended periods of time in the states, and had an long time as a member of a leading TEC church in NYC. He feels that TEC in some places has become overly politicised and acts more like a political action group than it should...

There's been a few responses to this, specifically one from Paul suggesting we need to define "politics" before we can weigh the merit of this critique.

In response, Obadiah offered a link to a thoughtful post from AKMA, Unsatisfactorily Superficial Prescript on Justice. Here's part of it:

...The matter of justice must not be minimized in dogmatic or doxological theology. When we address “justice,” however, the reflexive recitation of the apotropaic formula “justice” neither absolves a theologian of the obligation to work out the meaning of that topic in conjunction with Scripture and the church’s inherited wisdom — not solely in terms of a liberal progressive nostalgia for “the good causes”...

...My considered intuition suggests that many of the hymns and prayers that tag “justice” into a laundry list of things “we” support, or that compel congregations into implicit endorsements of policies from which they may be inclined to dissent, do not advance the gospel. In such cases, “justice” no longer bespeaks the love, equity, and mercy of God, but only serves the cause of partisan cheerleading; it makes of “justice” a fetish, a keyword which, if cited often enough, absolves speakers from critical reflection and practice...

So, what do you think? Does TEC engage in too much politics based on "a liberal progressive nostalgia for good causes"?

To prime the pump, here's a couple of thoughts that come to mind. When I'm new to an area, which seems to have been the case much too often over the last decade, there are two criteria I use to select a community of faith; worship and acts of mercy.

My experience of TEC is that we embrace the concept of "lex orandi, lex credendi", the law of prayer is the law of belief. The way that we worship expresses what we believe, and, to some extent, can form our beliefs. If the worship is at least from the BCP (you'd be surprised how often this is not the case!) I then want to see evidence that their worship is not simply lip service. Do they live what they profess? I want to see the fruit.

There's another tension involved here that I want to mention, between orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxis (right action). Especially among Protestants, it seems that orthodoxy is the primary focus, while orthopraxis almost seems, in some places, to be an afterthought.

To approach this tension from a more objective perspective, it might be helpful to recall the five pillars of Islam: Shahadah, the profession of faith in Allah; Salāt, prayer; Sawm, fasting; Zakāh, the paying of alms and Hajj, the pilgrimage to Mecca. Note that only the first is concerned with "right belief". The rest are focused on "right action".

There is no question that right belief is the essential starting point if we are to engage in right action. But it seems to me that often we get stuck on that first step.

Personally, I find my "marching orders" in Matthew 25:

“Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”

But maybe I'm just engaging in "a liberal progressive nostalgia for good causes"?

The other thought that comes to mind is the illustrated manuscript I have hanging on the wall in my living room; the text from Micah 6:8...

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

When we speak of the justice of God, it is usually a harsh term. Justice is balanced by mercy. The goal of engaging in "justice issues" is to reestablish balance, not to "win", and thus create new victims.

Are we too "political"? Is "justice" a term that has lost it's meaning today?

J.

Nigeria Today May Be the Christian Right of Tomorrow

The Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane, Bishop of Washington, has written an editorial that will appear in tomorrow's Washington Post entitled A Gospel of Intolerance. The issue the bishop addresses is Nigeria's outlawing of same sex relationships, which we have previously discussed here. Bishop Chane identifies Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola as a prominent leader behind the passage of this new law:

...Meeting last February, the primates who lead our 38 member provinces issued a unanimous statement that said in part: "The victimization or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us."

We now have reason to doubt those words.

Archbishop Peter J. Akinola, primate of the Church of Nigeria and leader of the conservative wing of the communion, recently threw his prestige and resources behind a new law that criminalizes same-sex marriage in his country and denies gay citizens the freedoms to assemble and petition their government. The law also infringes upon press and religious freedom by authorizing Nigeria's government to prosecute newspapers that publicize same-sex associations and religious organizations that permit same-sex unions.

Were Archbishop Akinola a solitary figure and Nigeria an isolated church, his support for institutionalized bigotry would be significant only within his own country. But the archbishop is perhaps the most powerful member of a global alliance of conservative bishops and theologians, generously supported by foundations and individual donors in the United States, who seek to dominate the Anglican Communion and expel those who oppose them, particularly the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Failing that, the archbishop and his allies have talked of forming their own purified communion -- possibly with Archbishop Akinola at its head...

Bishop Chane then identifies one of these supporting foundations, the Institue on Religion and Democracy:

...Because the conflict over homosexuality is not unique to Anglicanism, civil libertarians in this country, and other people as well, should also be aware of the archbishop and his movement. Gifts from such wealthy donors as Howard Ahmanson Jr. and the Bradley, Coors and Scaife families, or their foundations, allow the Washington-based Institute on Religion and Democracy to sponsor so-called "renewal" movements that fight the inclusion of gays and lesbians within the Episcopal, Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran churches and in the United Church of Christ. Should the institute succeed in "renewing" these churches, what we see in Nigeria today may well be on the agenda of the Christian right tomorrow...

The IRD is an organization that most Episcopalians should be familiar with by now. If you need to refresh your memory, here is some background info. To summarize, the IRD began as an anti-communist organization that was involved in clandestine operations in Central America during the Reagan era. When they ran out of communists, they turned on the mainline churches. Just a taste of their involvement in the current tensions within the Episcopal Church can be seen here. When the American Anglican Council was first organized, they shared office space, the same mailing address, board members and wealthy contributers with the IRD. Some background on the IRD's attack on the Methodist Church can be found here. An example of their work within the United Church of Christ can be seen here.

Bishop Chane returns to his focus on Archbishop Akinola, and asks his supporters an important question:

...The archbishop's support for this law violates numerous Anglican Communion documents that call for a "listening process" involving gay Christians and their leaders. But his contempt for international agreements also extends to Articles 18-20 of the United Nations Universal Declaration on Human Rights, which articulates the rights to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, association and assembly.

Surprisingly, few voices -- Anglican or otherwise -- have been raised in opposition to the archbishop. When I compare this silence with the cacophony that followed the Episcopal Church's decision to consecrate the Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson, a gay man who lives openly with his partner, as the bishop of New Hampshire, I am compelled to ask whether the global Christian community has lost not only its backbone but its moral bearings. Have we become so cowed by the periodic eruptions about the decadent West that Archbishop Akinola and his allies issue that we are no longer willing to name an injustice when we see one?

I also feel compelled to ask the archbishop's many high-profile supporters in this country why they have not publicly dissociated themselves from his attack on the human rights of a vulnerable population. Is it because they support this sort of legislation, or because the rights of gay men and women are not worth the risk of tangling with an important alliance?

I'd like to hear an answer to that final question as well, but I won't be holding my breath.

Bishop Chane did not address another reason why we should be holding Archbishop Akinola accountable; his role in the recent violence in Nigeria. In a recent statement, Abp. Akinola had these words to offer:

...May we at this stage remind our Muslim brothers that they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation. Nigeria belongs to all of us – Christians, Muslims and members of other faiths. No amount of intimidation can Change this time-honoured arrangement in this nation. C.A.N. may no longer be able to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue...

That sounds to me like a threat of violence. Some news reports are suggesting that the Abp.'s statement was simply stating that reprisals are now inevitable. Ok. Then how about, as a christian leader, a word of condemnation regarding such violence? Without such a condemnation, it certainly sounds like an implied threat.

Those who study such things have suggested that the center of Christianity is shifting from the West towards the South. Does Archbishop Akinola represents the future of Christendom? If so, do we really want to be part of it?

J.

A Clarification of Terms

The comments at Jake's place have greatly increased lately. They've ranged from an expansion of the topic introduced by the post to alerts regarding other news items. Some have been prolonged conversations. As I've stated previously, I have no problem with tangential comments, as I think that's how conversations in 3D tend to unfold.

However, one of the drawbacks of long comment threads is that sometimes a particularly helpful statement can get lost. For instance, in response to a recent post, Bill Carroll made this comment:

...I think that there is hope for communion with anyone who is not hellbent on schism.

In a typology that is surely inadequate to describe the real complexities, I distinguish between

(1) those who are temperamentally conservative and do not yet see the reasons for these changes;

(2) those who have what they take to be doctrinal/biblical reservations;

(3) those who are obsessed with "gay sex" (almost always gay male sex) and their revulsion about the details that the Presiding Bishop asked us to be spared; and

(4) ideological conservatives who see this as a good wedge issue.

In some cases a person may be acting out of some combination of (1)-(4).

I have the least sympathy for (4). (3) requires therapy, in my view, but I have sympathy for people who suffer from it, because they seem to be in genuine psychic distress. I myself don't think about what my lgbtq friends do in the bedroom, anymore than I do about my "straight" friends. I don't have much hope of remaining in communion with most of the folks who are acting from (3) or (4), at least in the short run.

(1) and (2) include a lot of other people that I know and care a great deal about, with whom I hope to remain in communion. It's much easier to deal with people that we know and can put a face on, isn't it? I am required by my baptismal and ordination vows to love and to care for people who are acting from (1), (2), (3), (4), anything my typology leaves out, or any combination thereof. I am also required, as far as I can see, to oppose with all my might any attempt to closet or marginalize--not to mention beat or imprison or kill-- any human being...

I found this typology very helpful, as it is true to my experience. It is one I will be attempting to keep in mind, in an effort to avoid making the kind of generalized statements I've been inclined to make in the past (ALL conservatives are homphobic bigots, etc.), as they are not any more true than the same kind of generalized condemnations that I hear being tossed in my direction (ALL progressives are apostate heretics, etc.)

It would be interesting to develop a similar typology regarding progressives. There are certainly variations among us.

J.

Signs of Healing at St. John's, Bristol

Most likely you recall the story from last July of the inhibition of Mark Hansen, rector of St. John's, Bristol, by the Rt. Rev. Andrew Smith, Bishop of Connecticut. At the time there was quite a bit of outrage and many ugly words aimed at the bishop because he not only inhibited the rector, but also made a personal visit to the parish, installed a new priest and changed the locks. My understanding is that there is still a court case pending against the bishop and the diocese for those actions. The Rev. Susan McCone remains priest in charge as the parish seeks an interim.

According to a recent article in the Hartford Courant, there are signs of new life at St. John's:

...Over the weeks and months, after the TV cameras left and the church's troubles faded from the headlines, members began to trickle back. The services grew larger little by little, and by late fall there finally were enough people to hold two services on Sundays.

"There had been all kinds of rumors circulating about what kind of a priest I was," McCone recalled. "It took those 39 people to come and say, `She's a traditional priest who preaches the Gospel and says the Mass and gives communion.' And gradually, it just started to increase."

There are some troubling parts of this article, however:

...That Sunday morning, McCone spoke of her fears. She said she had been called by the bishop to lead the church temporarily, "but I also believe I was called by God. And during this week, at times when I was alone, I asked, `Why, God, why me?"'

In the days that followed, she realized those fears were warranted. One day someone threw rocks at the church. McCone also had to cope with telephoned death threats, both at her home and at the church.

"I know there is evil. But I felt it close to me in a personal way that had never happened to me before," McCone said. "And it really does seem to have a physical and a certain mental toll that you're not even aware of. It's a kind of exhaustion."

Multiple death threats. And she stayed anyway. An amazing priest.

Seven months later, how do the members of the parish view the events of last Summer?

...Looking back, some members of the church say their church was irresistibly pulled along by forces inside and outside. One of the first actions of the newly elected church vestry was to withdraw from the Anglican Communion Network, a national organization of conservative parishes that consider themselves more "biblically orthodox" than the U.S. Episcopal Church.

"That was a point of dissension with a lot of people," Demarais said, adding that many members were actually relieved when the diocese took over the church. "There are folks who are conservative, but there are just as many who don't feel that way. We were never unanimous about that. A lot of people just kept their mouths shut. We're relieved to have sermons on the lesson that are not related to the gay bishop in New Hampshire."

Pray for this parish, and pray for their courageous priest, Susan McCone.

This is but one example of why parishes must be required to attempt, for a prolonged period of time, to be reconciled with their bishop through some process, instead of being given the option of realignment with a foreign bishop. So much of the current tension is initiated by the clergy, who use the pulpit to fan the flames.

Death threats. Unbelievable. I think I'll be making a visit to the local Army/Navy store. As a Christian, I don't fear death, but have an aversion to pain, so here's some helpful advice to any extremists who might want to hunt down Jake; I'll be wearing body armor under my alb, so aim for the head.

We live in bizarre times.

J.

Schism; Natural Evolution?

Maury Johnston, author of the previous essay, has left a comment that I wanted to highlight, as I believe it will further our discussion:

I must say that reading the posts here is quite an education in the labyrinth of Anglican politics. I do not say that disparagingly--every church must have some coherent system of self-goverance--and I am part of the Episcopal Church for better or for worse. But ironically, as the author of the "offending" article, there is little for me to add to many of these posts since I do not have an expertise in the interior mechanizations of Anglican hierarchical and legislative intrigue. I came into the church only a number of years ago because of my affinity for its eucharistic centeredness and the liturgical aesthetics which it has admirably preserved. But reading the posts here, I am impressed by the general tenor of openness and an honest wrestling with the issues in an atmosphere of utmost sincerity and civility, even to the extent that many have bared their own pilgrimage through a personal sense of conflictedness on some of these explosive issues. I respect that, for it speaks to the presence of spiritual genuineness.

By contrast, I wish to draw your attention to another website which many of you are no doubt only too familiar: David Virtue Online, www.virtueonline.org. And no, this is not some personal attack on David Virtue. Acutally, before a few days ago, I was not even aware of who he was. I soon found out! He called me as a courtesy to get permission to use my article on his website, and we had a most amiable conversation, all the while respecting and acknowleging our deep differences. Apparently, he received a copy of my article from someone and has proceeded to quote extensively from it in a piece entitled "The Great Divide: Schism is a Reality Says Liberal Leader." (No, I am not the leader to whom he refers). I have read it and found his "take" on things quite interesting, for though he is theologically an "arch-enemy", his treatment of what I had to say was done with respect and considerable fairness (though we disagree on practically everything--well, almost). But what so negatively impressed me were the comments of his readers. It was not that they were ultra-orthodox, or even that they were anti-gay, it was the sense of mean-spirited, doctrinal rigidity which would have made the Pharisees feel proud. We were not gay people, we were the dreaded "sodomites." There was no sense that they had ever done any serious reflection about the possibility they could be wrong, or even slightly misinformed on any issue. No flexibility. In contrast, here I have seen an unspoken tendency to entertain moments of theological elasticity in order to try and accommodate differences, and a willingness to dialogue, but I think that the Virtue website underscores the futility of expending all our energies in trying to keep them happy under an ECUSA umbrella. I just don't think it will work. Their mind is made up: They are right, liberals are wrong; even moderates are suspect. Perhaps that is why I speak out for a solidifying of the stance for affirmation and inclusiveness at GC06 which strives for full acceptance of the GLBT agenda (yes, I admit it is an agenda--for first class church citizenship).

Just thinking out loud (I know that can be dangeous, since such thoughts do not always lend themselves to consistency), but I believe that the most danger lies with the centrists who may wish to compromise what the GLBT community of faith deems essential in order to placate the conservatives like those on Virtue's website. But they have an intolerant streak which will not be placated. And many of them have no intention of staying in ECUSA, anyway. On the other hand, I fully acknowledge that there are legitimate theological conservatives who are not uncaring or homophobic, but who simply feel constrained by their literal understanding of scripture to oppose our stance. But will they be willing to live under the same church rafters with a sexually-affirming GLBT community? I doubt it, in the end. The problem is that the conservative extremists consider the ECUSA, to the extent it is under the sway of forces for inclusivity, to be schismatic. Many of us would in turn accuse them of leaving in a huff. So maybe instead of pointng fingers of blame for schism, we should just accept it as a natural evolution of things, and let it become what it will become, in faith that God can sort out the differences and make of them some kind of coherent pattern within Anglicanism which has yet to be seen by the spiritually discerning.

Would it be better if we quit pointing fingers and accept that schism is inevitable? Could it be possible that it might even be the way that God is moving through all of this, making all things new?

J.

"Come On, Church! Get a Backbone!"

This excellent essay was recently sent to me. I reprint it here with the author’s permission.

________________________________
FACING THE SPECTRE OF SCHISM
© 2006 by Maury Johnston

The "moment of truth" is fast approaching for the ECUSA, and this summer Columbus, Ohio, will have an opportunity to become as theologically significant as Nicaea or Chalcedon for American Anglicanism. One of the most bitter and divisive controversies of the last century may very well be put to rest with the embracing of an inclusive theological stance that stands unequivocally for justice and equality in Christ for the GLBT worshipping community. However, some centrists in the hierarchy of the ECUSA seem to believe that liberal theological apologists in our church should tone things down. To aggressively engage in heated controversy over doctrinal and moral issues is somehow seen by some as negatively divisive, and something to be avoided at all costs. Instead, they prefer to "kiss and make nice" and indefinitely prolong this dance of disagreement by endlessly proposing further studies and waiting periods before finally tackling the inevitable. This seems to be the essence of the most recent resolution passed by the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia in late January, 2006, where we are being implored to "continue listening to one another" in our contentious controversy regarding full GLBT acceptance (including same-sex blessings and the continuing ordination of gay and lesbian candidates) in the ECUSA. Such efforts are like trying to smooth out the ripples in a pond after a stone has been thrown into its center. We are simply expending too much energy trying to keep factions in a feigned appearance of unity when in reality we have what divorce courts so often hear as the underlying cause of most relational demises--irreconcilable differences.

What seems to be forgotten in this pressing desire to placate Canterbury's Windsor Report and the homophobic, African ecclesiastical contingency, is that the "unity" of the Church at the expense of justice for the GLBT faithful is a compromise which will temporarily apply a cosmetic veneer of congenial cooperation but can only weaken the internal integrity of the message and mission of this church.

I am writing this missive to promulgate what may be perceived by many in our ranks as a scandalous and divisive proposition: That the time for conversation and compromise is over; we have had over thirty years of discussions, dialogue, debate, conflicting biblical exegesis (as well as eisegesis), and ecclesiastical haggling over whether those within the GLBT community warrant total acceptance and inclusion as full-fledged members of the Episcopal Church with all concomitant privileges of membership in the Community of Christ, including the right to fully participate in all its sacramental rites of passage, including marriage and/or same-sex blessings. There is nothing more to be said that has not already been said or studied. It is time for "Yea" or "Nay." We are being confronted with the command which echoes down the centuries from the legendary challenge of Elijah: "Choose you this day!" The Episcopal Church has a choice set before it: To fully incorporate gays and lesbians at every level of its common life with full sacramental and liturgical equality of access to its rites and ceremonies, or to grant only a limited toleration of their presence, carefully circumscribed by a curtailment of access to matrimonial rites and privileges in order to satisfy the demands of the self-proclaimed defenders of "orthodoxy."

The ultimate irony regarding anti-gay, Anglican contingents who tout their doctrinal orthodoxy is that they are actually heretical. They have substituted an idolatrous regard for scripture as statically inerrant for a balanced view of the biblical documents as time-caught records of human striving for divine insight which should only be interpreted in the light of reason, and by the dynamic of living tradition which enables us to apply its guidelines with a sense of cultural relevance and spiritual continuity. Scripture, Reason, and Tradition: These triple pillars of Anglican theology have unfortunately been trumped by what I call the Nigerian Heresy (in honor of its most vocal and belligerent spokesperson) emanating from that infamous cabal of Third World primates who have suddenly discovered Sola Scriptura to be their theological stance of choice, even as they vociferously proclaim an adherence to apostolic Catholicity.

It is interesting to note that in the early Church, Paul's most adversarial opponents loudly proclaimed themselves as defenders of orthodoxy--in their case, Mosaic orthodoxy, complete with its rules, regulations, and strictures dictating social and moral propriety. But it is important to bear in mind that these opponents of Paul were not Jews by faith; they were Hebrew Christians with another point of view who considered Paul to be both a religious subversive and an antinomian heretic for his gospel of inclusion and his proclamation of the superceding of Mosaic Law with a lifestyle of grace and acceptance.

Things have not changed much in 2000 years. Conservative Anglican blowhards who never miss an opportunity to demonize the GLBT community, portray our Christianity as a posturing of Satan in the sanctuary, a subversion of social, moral, and "family" values. We are seen, like Paul, as antinomian heretics intent on minimizing the relevancy of scripture and destroying the good witness of the Church, and conservative Episcopalians in the USA are now threatening schism as a result of our strides towards full acceptance in the denomination.

So what should be our reaction? More conversations? Not! More dialogue? Not! More tabling of resolutions at the General Convention aimed at bringing gays and lesbians full inclusion at every level in the common life of the People of God? Not! Do I seem harsh? Do I seem uncharitable? Do I seem assertively intolerant? I am, absolutely! And what justification could I possibly use for such a stance? The example set by the apostle Paul.

The epistles of Paul reveal that he didn't think much of the Episcopal approach of compromise and endless conversing when it came to what he considered the essentials of his gospel of inclusiveness and grace. He went so far as to say that if even an angel were to appear contradicting his message, it was to be considered accursed (Galatians 1:8-9). Nor did he hesitate to call his opponents the most uncivil of names: dogs, mutilators, enemies of the Cross, false apostles, and sons of Satan, to name a few (Philippians 3:2; 2 Corinthians 11:12-15). Keep in mind that these objects of Paul's vitriol were not Jesus-rejecting Jews or God-ignorant pagans; they were fellow Christians. They were Hebrew Christians, to be sure, who held to very Judaic forms of "traditional family/social values." Yet he did not hesitate to strike out viciously against those who would insist he compromise his gospel of full acceptance for the Gentiles and his liberation theology of freedom from the Law.

The GLBT community in the Episcopal Church can no longer afford the luxury of cowering in timidity waiting for yet another General Convention after 2006 to validate them. It is time to stand up and speak. It is time to accept no compromise with the forces that oppose us. This is a "do or die" situation coming up in the summer of 2006. The world will be watching the ECUSA to see if they have the intestinal fortitude to "put their money where their mouth is" and buck the conservative pressures of the contemporary Anglican "party of the circumcision." Will this American church have the prophetic foresight to risk schism for the implementation of justice for all of its baptized believers? Putting off till tomorrow what can be done today is no longer an option reflecting spiritual wisdom: "Now is the day of salvation," and the GLBT community within the Episcopal Church should no longer be willing to wait until the proverbial Parousia to receive its full panoply of rights (including appropriate rites) and protections as first-class citizens in the family of God! What the General Convention will be dealing with in Columbus, Ohio, this summer is not a mere peripheral issue, it is a prophetic imperative to gather up the sexually marginalized in the welcoming embrace of the Church in order that what was begun with the Ethiopian eunuch (Acts 8:26-40) may come to its completion in us as a fulfillment of Isaiah 56:3-8, where those who were previously discriminated against for perceived sexual irregularities were promised a place of full acceptance in the midst of God's people.

Schism--whether within the Episcopal Church itself, or between the ECUSA and the wider Anglican Communion--is a word that makes most Episcopalians shudder, as if it is a visible sign of the failure of God's people to solve their problems, or worse yet, from an Episcopalian perspective, an unsightly "airing of dirty laundry." To which I readily respond: There has never been a time when the Church Universal--despite its talk of unity and one Lord--was not in some kind of schism. From the circumcision controversy of the first century to the Arian Christologies of the third and fourth centuries, and the Great Schism between Rome and Constantinople, (not to mention the splintering effect of the Protestant Reformation), the Church has always been a waiting Bride with blemishes, a virtual sanctified "Sybil" with split personalities, and so it will be till the fullness of time erases the ugliness of its internal dissonance. What we need to realize is that there are times when schism should not be avoided, for as Paul himself said, "There must be schisms among you in order that those who are approved among you [by God] may be made obvious" (1 Corinthians 11:19). Only in contrast with error is the truth allowed to shine for all to see.

Division is not always a dirty word. In times past, it was often encouraged by the frenzied bellowing of a prophet whose words seared a crowd's complacency, demanding, "Come out from among them and be ye separate!" It was Jesus who frankly declared, "Think not that I am come to send peace upon the earth. I am not come to send peace, but a sword [of division]." He went on to say that his message would cause the break up of family relations and close friendships (Matthew 10:34-36). He further instructed his disciples to "shake off the dust from their feet" as they separated from those who rejected his words.

We further find that the fledgling Church had its share of squabbles. Even Paul and Barnabas found it necessary to part ways because of their strong disagreement over John Mark and whether or not he met the ecclesiastical qualifications to go with them on their missionary journey. Their only solution was division: Paul taking another companion while Barnabas took John Mark, creating two separate missionary ventures instead of the initial one envisioned (Acts 15:36-41), all because of an inability to achieve agreement on issues important to the propagation of the Gospel. What makes us believe that we will necessarily be able to avoid the sticky quagmire of what amounts to a religious divorce between the contemporary combatants in our current controversy about the relationship between sexuality and the Spirit-led life? In cases like this, schism is sometimes the only sensible alternative. Just as Abram and Lot had to agree to separate in order to avoid further conflict between their families and servants (Genesis 13:5-13), so it is at times both the only realistic and peace-producing solution. Yet in this less-than-desirable situation, an essential unity is still preserved, for both contending parties still give allegiance to a common Christ, even if such unity can no longer be expressed in congenial fellowship with one another.

It is also time for the ECUSA to take a good look around at the religious landscape; they will notice that others have already run ahead of them to lift up the prophetic banner of justice for gays, lesbians, and all God's marginalized children, foremost among them being the United Church of Christ (UCC) which has recently fully embraced the GLBT community and same-sex blessings. Far from being a disaster for the denomination, it has resulted in only a small number of congregational defections, while in the process, a significant number of new applications by churches for affiliation with the UCC have been received, including the Cathedral of Hope, one of the largest GLBT churches in the nation. By contrast, the ECUSA has given us a token gay bishop, but instead of fearlessly pressing on for full participation of gays and lesbians in every aspect of the church's common life, some are now wringing their hands over whether or not to refrain from ordaining any more GLBT bishops or even allowing official sanction for same-sex blessings for fear of further offending conservative Anglican sensitivities. Come on, Church! Get a backbone! It is time to stand up and say to those whitewashed, conservative apparitions of self-righteousness still haunting our denomination, "By the way that you call 'heresy' worship we the God of our ancestors! (Acts 24:14) Here we stand! We will not back down!" These rigid, religious iconoclasts are attempting to change directions for the good ship Grace, pointing it backwards into the stagnant moorings of religio-social anachronism, rather than allowing it to chart a new course carrying God's message of hope and acceptance to the marginalized and misunderstood. Put simply, we cannot allow them to commandeer the ship. If they do, we will have no choice but to put out in a lifeboat, and like St. Brendan of old, chart a course of faith into new territories, confident that God goes before us.


Maury Johnston is the author of Gays Under Grace: A Gay Christian's Response to the Moral Majority (Winston-Derek Publishers, 1984), and a member of the Church of the Holy Comforter (Episcopal) in Richmond, Virginia.

_____________________________

… The world will be watching the ECUSA to see if they have the intestinal fortitude to "put their money where their mouth is" and buck the conservative pressures of the contemporary Anglican "party of the circumcision." Will this American church have the prophetic foresight to risk schism for the implementation of justice for all of its baptized believers?

There it is, folks, plain and simple. No time left for fence sitting. Here we stand. We will not back down.

J.

A Cloud Over Albany

Some recent reports have appeared regarding the Episcopal Diocese of Albany. The first one is entitled Spiritual Shift Splits Diocese. Here's part of it:

...For months, internal debate has revolved around outgoing Bishop Daniel Herzog, who is accused by some in his flock of concealing church finances, short-circuiting the election of his successor and sidelining those who clash with his theological beliefs.

The climate in the diocese has added significance because of the high-profile battle Herzog has waged as a national leader in the Episcopal Church's internal fight over the ordination of gay clergy, which Herzog vociferously opposes...

...Clergy who don't share Herzog's theological bent, critics complain, have also been frozen out of leadership positions within the diocese.

And some feel his plan to fast-track his succession, approved when Herzog announced his impending retirement at last year's diocesan convention, short-circuits the lengthy stock-taking crucial to picking a leader who will guide the diocese for years to come...

The article goes on to delve into questions being raised regarding diocesan finances, and specifically the funding of Bishop Herzog's pet project, the Spiritual Life Center, which includes a healing ministry. The diocese sold the Children's Hospital of Albany and placed the proceeds in a charitable foundation, designating those funds for "health care services and health care-related educational and religious programs." Hundreds of thousands of dollars from this foundation have been poured into the new "healing ministry".

A follow-up report can be found here.

The process of the election of a coadjutor for Albany is also worth noting. Here is how Bishop Herzog explained it at the Diocesan Convention of June, 2005:

...As you know in the wake of New Hampshire the House of Bishops decided to withhold all consents to the election of new bishops until the General Convention meets in Columbus a year from this month. A lot of nominees will be piled up.

I believe that an environment of graciousness regarding consents to the election of new bishops now prevails in the Episcopal Church. How that will stand after the General Convention of next year is less certain. Giving this Diocese the option of electing a bishop coadjutor and securing consent at the next general convention would more likely assure the Diocese of Albany having a bishop into the 21st century who accurately reflects our commitment to the apostolic faith and to evangelical mission...

The "environment of graciousness" seems to point to the idea that since consents for bishops will be backed up due to the moratorium, there will be some move at General Convention to approve them all quickly. In other words, now is the window of opportunity to slip a bishop who will "reflect our commitment to the apostolic faith" easily through the consent process.

The diocesan canons had to be changed, to allow the election process reserved for a suffragan to be used to elect a coadjutor. Once on the fast-track, the nominations commenced. Even though I disagreed with some of his answers, I was pleased to see Bill Love nominated. He was a year behind me at the House. A gentle man, and a devoted father and husband. I know another candidate as well, and wouldn't vote for him as dogcatcher. I have too much respect for dogs.

What is fascinating is the questions these candidates were asked. Here's a few:

...4. Are there any articles of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds with which you are in anything but full personal and theological agreement? If so, which and why? In your response, please address the following questions: Was Jesus raised bodily from the dead, such that the tomb was empty of his physical being, and in his body he appeared unto his disciples until his Ascension into heaven? Do you believe Jesus was virginally conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary? Do you agree that the Persons of the Trinity are only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit and no other expression or naming may be substituted? For example, do you believe that a person baptized in the name of “Creator, Redeemer, Sanctifier” is validly baptized...

...6. Under what circumstances would you authorize the use of rites for or any practice of same-sex blessing, union, or marriage in this diocese or support such rites or practices anywhere in the Church? Under what circumstances would you permit or approve the ordination or licensing of a person who is sexually active outside the bonds of marriage between a man and a woman?

7. In John 14:6, Jesus stated, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (NIV) What is your understanding of this passage, and what does it say about Christianity’s relationship with other world religions...

Does one sense a possible agenda here?

Albany Via Media has some suggestions for additional questions that might be asked of these candidates. One of my own springs to mind:

"Do you believe it is wise for the Diocese of Albany to be affiliated with the Network, in light of the evidence that it is the goal of that organization to destroy the Episcopal Church?"

May God have mercy on the faithful of Albany.

J.

UPDATE: The Rt. Rev. David Bena, Bishop Suffragan of Albany, responds to the Times Union articles.

FURTHER UPDATE: Anglicans Online points us two of the documents mentioned in the article and refuted by Bp. Bena; the letter from a trustee and one from Dean Kris.

Pillagers in Purple

We occasionally hear of some Episcopal parish that is upset with the Episcopal Church over one thing or another deciding to break with the Church. These sad stories are nothing new. There's never been a time in the history of the Church when one group or another didn't attempt to sever the ties that bound the body together. So it goes when frail and flawed humans seek purity. As we all know, the Church could be a wonderful and holy place, if it wasn't for all those damn people! The only pure Church would be an empty one; but of course then it wouldn't be the Church, would it?

The latest form of this quest for purity has a new twist to it. Churches are leaving the Episcopal Church, but attempting to remain Anglican by affiliating themselves with a foreign Anglican bishop.

Some might suggest that they have every right to do this. No, they don't. The smallest division within the Church is the Diocese. There's a name for the perspective of my parish being the only thing that matters; it's called congregationalism, and is quite dominant among Protestant denominations in the U.S., a nation that places high value on individualism. But it has never been considered a vision of the Church that is acceptable within Anglicanism.

Simply put, one cannot just abandon their diocese and pick a new bishop. There cannot be more than one bishop with jurisdiction in a diocese, for valid practical as well as theological reasons.

There's an invasion of pastoral boundaries going on in these situations as well. Proposed plans for alternative oversight in situations in which the relationship between the bishop and a congregation becomes strained always includes in their goals some form of reconciliation. With most of the congregations that have recently left, there was no opportunity given for such reconciliation to occur. Why? Because a foreign bishop was waiting in the wings, promising them the moon.

It is towards these bishops, who show a blatant disregard for Anglican polity, the Windsor Report, The Episcopal Church, or the well-being of those who they gobble up, that I direct my outrage. They claim they are doing it "to protect the Orthodox." When I hear such pronouncements, I start pulling on my boots, as the smell of bull is getting strong. Every one of these foreign bishops comes from a diocese that is struggling financially. They are scooping up American churches so they can gain nice, fat annual assessments.

This is theft; specifically grand larceny. Here are the names of some of the suspects that should be charged with this crime:

WANTED FOR GRAND LARCENY -

The Rt. Rev. Frank Lyon, Bishop of Bolivia, for the theft of St. Luke's, Fairlawn, Ohio; Holy Spirit, Akron, Ohio; and St. Barnabas in Bay Village and St. Anne's in the Fields, Madison, Ohio.

The Rt. Rev. Benezeri Kisembo, Bishop of Ruwenzori, for the theft of South Riding, Virginia and Holy Spirit, Ashburn, Virginia.

Mr. Robinson Cavalcanti, former Bishop of Recife, for the theft of St. Stephen’s, Oak Harbor, Washington and St. Charles', Poulsbo, Washington.

The Rt. Rev. Evans Mukasa Kisekka, Bishop of Luweero, for the theft of All Saints, Long Beach, California, St. James, Newport Beach, California and St. David's, North Hollywood, California.

The Rt. Rev. Joel Obetia, Bishop of Madi/West Nile, for the theft of All Souls, Jacksonville and Redeemer, Jacksonville.

The Most Rev. Henry Luke Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda, for the theft of Christ Church, Overland Park, Kansas, and as an accomplice in the thefts carried out by Bps. Obieta, Kisekka and Kisembo listed above.

There's more, but that's a start. What other Pillagers in Purple need to be added to this Wanted List?

J.

Can Christians Affirm the Use of Torture?

Please forgive my lack of posts of late. My notebook's screen suddenly went dark, requiring me to ship it off to the 'puter doc. So, for the next few weeks, my access to the net will be limited.

A friend of ours has been loaning us complete seasons of the show 24 on DVD. It is an addictive program, with storylines that sometimes literally keep us on the edge of our seats. We're on season four now, and look forward to our evening installments of the adventures of Jack "Trust Me" Bauer.

One of the ethical dilemmas that reoccur throughout this show is when is it appropriate to use torture. As a Christian, I find myself wondering if torture is ever an option for us.

At last year's diocesan convention, a resolution on torture was defeated, primarily because of some of the wording within the resolution, but also because one member of convention stood up and testified that, as one who had formerly worked in government intelligence, the hard truth is that sometimes torture is necessary. Then, before anyone could respond to this statement (a statement that one could imagine Jack Bauer making through clenched teeth), someone who had become bored with the discussion called the question, and the resolution was defeated.

There will be another resolution against torture presented this year at convention. It would seem appropriate, if this resolution is challenged, to ask of convention the question; "Who would Jesus torture?"

Here's a resolution that was recently passed at the Annual Convention of the Diocese of Central New York:

RESOLVED, that the 137th Convention of the Diocese of Central New York submit the following resolution to the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church:

Resolved, the House of Bishops and House of Deputies concur that the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church condemns the use of torture and the practice of extraordinary rendition, and calls upon the United States government to condemn its use in compliance with the Geneva Conventions and United Nations’ declarations regarding human rights and the administration of justice, and to enact policies to prevent its use both domestically and abroad.

RESOLVED, that the 137th Convention of the Diocese of Central New York affirm the resolution above, and direct the Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation (JPIC) network to implement the above as appropriate in its work in our congregations, as well as our state and local governments.

Are you aware of similar resolutions that have been passed by other dioceses?

Update: I've recently been asked to call attention to the new National Religious Campaign Against Torture. Please consider endorsing their statement and, if possible, contributing financially to the campaign.

This group grew out of a recent conference Dr. George Hunsinger organized in Princeton on "Theology, International Law, and Torture."

An article written by Dr. Hunsinger might be of interest; Why the Torture Abuse Scandal Matters.

J.

Trinity Institute Webcasts

Trtinity Institute's 36th National Conference, entitled The Anatomy of Reconciliation; From Violence to Healing, concluded today. Webcasts of the keynote speakers and some of the panel discussions are now available. Here's some info on the speakers:

Author-theologian James Alison advocates a vision of non-violence based on an understanding of a theology of resurrection and the transformation of human desire. Yale Divinity School’s Miroslav Volf, a native of Croatia, works in a theological context shaped largely from his experience of Serbian-Croatian violence and the struggle toward peace. Sister Helen Prejean, CSJ, the author of Dead Man Walking, is a passionate advocate for restorative, rather than retributive, justice. After working in the thick of the struggle for civil rights, Gwendolyn Zoharah Simmons is now an american Muslim and a professor of religion who specializes in gender issues. Bishop Michael B. Curry, a powerful preacher whose leadership on a number of important fronts has combined the best of the prophetic and the pastoral will set the tone at the opening liturgy of reconciliation.

Trinity also has a virtual treasure trove of videos archived here.

J.

Lambeth 2008 and Anglican Congress 2007

It is still unclear who will be invited to Lambeth 2008. A commentary in the Church Times that appeared last November called for blanket invitations:

...There is, however, one thing that Dr Williams needs to do urgently. He must make it plain and public that all properly consecrated bishops will be invited to the next Lambeth Conference...

...If Dr Williams fails to act now, we might well descend to the next stage in the exclusion process. It is hard to believe that the Global South Primates will let a ban on ECUSA keep sympathetic US conservatives from Lambeth 2008. We can therefore expect to see either an alternative contender for the Anglican title emerging in the US, or the development of a formula — possibly a statement of faith that has to be signed by those wishing to attend — that will separate the conservative sheep from the liberal goats. Anything of the sort must be nipped in the bud, and for that Dr Williams must move off the back foot...

Dr. Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham and member of the Commission that authored the Windsor Report, refuted this suggestion:

...It is therefore hard to see how a "blanket invitation" to Lambeth, such as this paper urged (Leader comment, 25 November), can be issued to all bishops, irrespective of the Windsor-report rubric. This is a matter of both logic and process.

Logic: those who have disregarded the resolutions of the Lambeth Conference, and have not said that they regretted doing so, can hardly claim the right to be part of a body that they have so obviously disregarded.

Process: the Archbishop of Canterbury, having commissioned the Windsor report and convened the Primates, can hardly ignore the recommendations of that report and that meeting. If he is to "hold his ground", as some have suggested, this is the ground to be held. In this, the Archbishop deserves the full support that the General Synod promised him in February...

Keep in mind that it is not only Bishop Robinson who is in question here. The Windsor Report (which is a recommendation, not law, making Bp. Wright's "rubric" reference rather unfortunate) also includes this recommendation:

...those who took part as consecrators of Gene Robinson should be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion...

One might assume that being present at Lambeth would qualify as a "representative function".

I've suggested before that if any bishops of the Episcopal Church are not invited to Lambeth, all our bishops should "choose this day" (sorry...couldn't resist) to pass up this invitation. Some who visit here have pointed out that such a response might be seen as "walking away". The suggestion has been made that Bishop Robinson, and any others who might be excluded, be present anyway, and challenge the decision of Dr. Williams. This idea certainly has merit, if the challenge is heard loud and clear, which is questionable.

I find it frustrating for the Episcopal Church to be seen by some as being on the defensive because of our attempt to respond to the pastoral needs of our people. Must we constantly be responding to every new ploy of the extremists bent on destroying the Episcopal Church? Instead of simply reacting, isn't there anything pro-active we might do?

Maybe there is. A proposal to hold the Anglican Congress in South Africa in 2007 is being revived:

Liberal US bishops and clergy will this month revive a failed plan for an Anglican Congress in Cape Town in 2007. But conservative leaders believe that the Congress could be a direct challenge to the authority of the 10-yearly Lambeth Conference. The original initiative of the Anglican Consultative Council for a congress to be held alongside the Lambeth Conference in South Africa in 2008 was rejected by the organising ‘Design Group’ as too costly.

They also opted to return the bishops-only conference to Canterbury and exclude suffragan and area bishops in order to make the event affordable. But led by Bishop Orris Walker of Long Island and Canon John Peterson, the former Secretary-General of the Anglican Communion Office, liberal clergy believe they can organise and secure funding for the event. Canon Harold Lewis, said that the “scope, attendance, venue and dates of the pan-Anglican Congress will be determined at a planning meeting in Cape Town with the Archbishop, Njongonkulu Ndungane"...

The Living Church offers us a little more information:

...Bishop Walker said that Archbishop Ndungane had also invited the Bishop of Washington, the Rt. Rev. John B. Chane; the Rev. Canon John L. Peterson, former ACC secretary general and now canon for global justice and reconciliation at Washington National Cathedral; the Rev. Canon George W. Brandt, Jr., rector of St. Michael’s, New York City; the Rev. James Cooper, rector of Trinity Church Wall Street; the Rev Canon Harold T. Lewis, rector of Calvary Church, Pittsburgh; the Rev. Canon Frederick Boyd Williams, rector of the Church of the Intercession, New York City; and Canon Diane M. Porter, deputy for Episcopal administration in the Diocese of Long Island...

This proposed Anglican Congress is not to be confused with this one, or this one, or this one. Here's a brief explanation of what the Anglican Congress has been in the past, and what it might become in the future, by Ian Douglas:

...Now there are other ways that Anglicans “meet” in the words of Archbishop Tutu. There are the Anglican Congresses of 1908 in London, 1954 in Minneapolis, and 1963 in Toronto, where hundreds of lay and ordained leaders (once again lay and ordained) from each church in the Anglican Communion came together to see how Anglicans around the globe could better serve God’s mission in the world. You might recall the great vision for Anglican mission “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence in the Body of Christ”(or MRI for short) that resulted from the 1963 Anglican Congress. MRI gave Anglicanism a vision for mutuality in mission that has carried the day for the last five decades. Now a fourth Anglican Congress (or Anglican Gathering as it is being called) is planned for Cape Town, South Africa in July of 2008. And, as in the past congresses, this Gathering will be composed of a majority of lay people and will focus on what we Anglicans can do to make God’s saving and reconciling love known in the world. In my opinion the 2008 Gathering could be one of the most important events in the life of the contemporary Anglican Communion as it galvanizes us to faithful and united service in God’s mission.

The 2008 plan was dropped, due to funding difficulties. Now it is being revived, and scheduled for 2007.

A gathering to "galvanize us to faithful and united service", which includes all four orders of ministry. I like it. And, to top it off, it will be prior to Lambeth, so will be an opportunity for our bishops to hear the voice of the people of God loud and clear. Let's go!

J.

Nominees for Presiding Bishop Announced

The Rt. Rev. J. Neil Alexander, Bishop of Atlanta
The Rt. Rev. Edwin F. Gulick, Jr., Bishop of Kentucky
The Rt. Rev. Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of Nevada
The Rt. Rev. Henry N. Parsley, Jr., Bishop of Alabama

Photos and bios are provided here.

I have not served with any of these nominees. Does anyone have first-hand experience of working with any of these bishops?

J.

Episcopal Church Yoked with RCRC

It seems the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church recently made the following decision:

...Approved the Episcopal Church's membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice. The membership had caused some controversy during the last General Convention. In a related resolution (NAC-040), the council asked for a report at its March meeting regarding "membership of or on behalf of the Episcopal Church in external organizations." The National Concerns Committee is considering whether the church needs a more specific policy on membership in such organizations.

The Living Church gives us a little more background on this decision. There's already been some heated discussions in response to this decision. Rather than intrude on that conversation, I'll offer a few of my own observations.

Before saying any more, let me remind you of the official stance of the Episcopal Church on abortion, as articulated in a resolution of the 1994 General Convention:

All human life is sacred from its inception until death. The Church takes seriously its obligation to help form the consciences of its members concerning this sacredness. Human life, therefore, should be initiated only advisedly and in full accord with this understanding of the power to conceive and give birth which is bestowed by God. It is the responsibility of our congregations to assist their members in becoming informed concerning the spiritual and physiological aspects of sex and sexuality.

The Book of Common Prayer affirms that "the birth of a child is a joyous and solemn occasion in the life of a family. It is also an occasion for rejoicing in the Christian community" (p. 440). As Christians we also affirm responsible family planning.

We regard all abortion as having a tragic dimension, calling for the concern and compassion of all the Christian community.

While we acknowledge that in this country it is the legal right of every woman to have a medically safe abortion, as Christians we believe strongly that if this right is exercised, it should be used only in extreme situations. We emphatically oppose abortion as a means of birth control, family planning, sex selection, or any reason of mere convenience...

and be it further
Resolved, That this 71st General Convention of the Episcopal Church express its unequivocal opposition to any legislative, executive or judicial action on the part of local, state or national governments that abridges the right of a woman to reach an informed decision about the termination of pregnancy or that would limit the access of a woman to safe means of acting on her decision.

As some of you will recall, this resolution represents my own perspective. Abortion is always a tragedy, and should be used only in extreme situations. It is not an appropriate form of birth control.

I'm afraid this is one issue in which I part ways with many of my progressive brothers and sisters. I've read their arguments, and remain unconvinced of the ethical stance that they advocate. Even if we allow that a fetus is not fully human, we should be able to agree that the fetus is at minimum a "potential life", and so is deserving of some level of protection. The crux of the argument seems to be at what point this potential life becomes a human being. There is no consensus on this. As I've pointed out before, the "ensoulment at moment of conception" position has some difficulties, as seen in the example of an egg that splits to form twins. Scripture is not clear on this point either, as can be seen in Exodus 21:22-24. For causing a miscarriage, the penalty is a fine. For killing the woman, the penalty is a life for a life. We don't know where to draw the line.

What troubles me is that for some, this lack of a clear line of where human life begins has been taken as a reason to say we can simply make up our own lines. Lack of knowledge is not good grounds for assuming permission. If we admit we don't know, wouldn't it seem that the ethical thing to do would be to err on the side of caution?

The resolution produced by General Convention appears to be attempting to make a cautious stand. But now we see Executive Council affiliating the Episcopal Church with the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which is clearly not a cautious organization, and advocates for positions on abortion that are in direct contradiction with the official position of the Episcopal Church. I think the Executive Council has made a serious mistake.

Let me try to offer a couple of examples of why I think this is not a good organization for ECUSA to be yoked with. I'll be referring to a resource document from the RCRC's website, Words of Choice; Countering Anti-Choice Rhetoric. First, they take issue with the phrase "abortion as birth control":

Opponents of choice claim that more than 90 percent of abortions are a form of contraception. Underlying this vague, unsubstantiated claim is the notion that women are irresponsible in their sexuality. In fact, 58 percent of women having abortions in the mid-1990s used a contraceptive method during the month they became pregnant. This high rate of contraceptive failure indicates that available contraceptive methods do not meet the health, economic, and social needs of many women.

58% of women who have abortions are using it as a form of backup birth control? Forgive me for being politically incorrect, but I fail to see any reason for anyone to be offended by stating the plain truth. Abortion is being used as a form of birth control. The Episcopal Church is clearly on record as opposing this, as we should be, in my opinion.

The second example is the offense the RCRC finds in the phrase "abortion for convenience":

Women are charged with having abortions for frivolous reasons. Anti-choice rhetoric depicts women who have an abortion as impulsive or careless.
There is nothing "convenient" about having an abortion. It is socially stigmatized and personally wrenching. Women who have abortions often do so because they care about others - they want to bring children into the world under positive circumstances. The decision to have an abortion often is made because of poverty, concern for the well-being of existing children, and lack of commitment and support by the prospective father.

Since each person's situation is unique, reasons for abortion vary. Forty-nine percent of all pregnancies are unintended; of these, half are terminated by abortion Among those who report having an abortion, three-quarters say they are not ready to have a child because of responsibilities related to work, school, family, and other demands. About two-thirds say they cannot afford to have a child. Half do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner. Each year, about 14,000 women have abortions because they have become pregnant as a result of rape or incest.

If I understand this statement correctly, abortion is an option if you are poor, already have children, are a single parent, are in school, or have a demanding job. Those reasons certainly seem to fall under the category of "abortion for convenience" to me, which is also specifically opposed by the Episcopal Church.

I believe our Executive Council has made a huge mistake by associating the Episcopal Church with this group. I think it is a decision that is going to come back and haunt us.

I will never advocate for the reversal of Roe v Wade, however. Why? Consider this article (Thanks Aelred!):

"Four million abortions, most of them illegal, take place in Latin America annually, the United Nations reports, and up to 5,000 women are believed to die each year from complications from abortions."[*] This takes place in countries where churches and schools teach abstinence as the only form of contraception—demonstrating conclusively the ineffectiveness of that kind of program.

By contrast, in the United States, where abortion is legal and sex education is broader, the abortion rate reached a twenty-four-year low during the 1990s. Yet the ironically named "pro-life" movement would return the United States to the condition of Chile or Colombia.

Here's another example of why I think abortion needs to remain legal and safe and be considered an option in "extreme situations", from a letter in the recent edition of Episcopal Life:

Our daughter is 37 years old. Three years ago, she terminated a pregnancy. Her first pregnancy was normal, and she delivered a boy. Her second pregnancy was normal. She delivered a girl who died from SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome) at 3 1/2 months. Within six months, she was in her third pregnancy. She delivered a normal boy.

Four months later, she developed congestive heart failure. She worked as a respiratory therapist in the ER of a hospital. The virus attacked her heart. Her cardiologist told her husband to get a vasectomy. He chose not to do so because, if our daughter died, he reasoned he might want to have a child with someone else.

Our daughter faithfully took her birth control. However, she was on eight different medications, which may have diminished the effectiveness of the birth control pills. She became pregnant.

A cardiologist, an obstetrician and an internist advised her to terminate the pregnancy, as she likely would not survive and/or the child would not be able to develop normally due to her circulatory problems and necessary medications to keep her alive. She went through with the termination of her pregnancy so that she could raise her two sons. She still grieves for the child that died, and the decision to terminate her last pregnancy was agonizing.

Her husband did get a vasectomy. He realized that raising two boys without their mother would be a lifelong loss for them to deal with.
I appreciate the opportunity to tell this story to persons in addition to my parish. We hope that this will help keep a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy legal. Our daughter's name is Lucy Harlan. Our family attends St. Christopher's Episcopal Church in Carmel, Ind.

I believe that our ethical discussions involving sanctity of life issues may be the most critical conversations happening in the Church right now. This issue, if it is immoral to terminate a potential life, is directly connected to other ethical issues; euthanasia, capital punishment and just war theory. If we affirm God as the giver of life, we cannot claim the right to take life, innocent or guilty, without first confronting the finality of such a decision, and engaging in prolonged prayer and reflection on the implications of such an act. We walk on dangerous ground whenever we attempt to take on the role of God.

Will I leave the Episcopal Church over this? Of course not. That is one of the wonderful things about the Episcopal Church; I can protest against the leadership and never fear being silenced, denied communion, or excommunicated for my outrage. I can argue with my bishop, and then share in the sacramental life with him or her. Such graciousness makes room for further reflection and conversation, which often leads to the eventual realization that I might just be wrong.

J.

Why Listen When We Can Beat, Defame and Incarcerate?

Thinking Anglicans has kept us informed regarding a curious story that continues to unfold within the Church of Nigeria. For those who haven't been following it, allow me to offer a brief summary with some background material.

First, keep in mind the following segment of Resolution 1.10 from Lambeth 1998 regarding Human Sexuality:

This conference...recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ...

Now consider some of the statements made by the Primate of the Church of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola in 2003:

"This is an attack on the Church of God - a Satanic attack on God's church...I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don't hear of such things."

"When we sit down globally as a communion, I am going to sit in a meeting with a man who is marrying a fellow man? I mean it's just not possible. I cannot see myself doing it."

So much for "listening to the experience" in Nigeria.

In October 2005, a brave group of gay and lesbian Anglicans in Nigeria challenged Archbishop Akinola:

Changing Attitude Nigeria achieved national awareness today by having an article published in the Daily Sun, Nigeria's national mass circulation newspaper. The article confronts the Primate of All Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, with the reality of gay and lesbian worshippers in Anglican churches across Nigeria. It reminds the church of the commitment made by the Primates, including Archbishop Akinola, to listen to the experience of homosexual persons in each province and reflect on these matters...

For their efforts, Director Davis Mac-Iyalla and eight members of Changing Attitude Nigeria were beaten and jailed. Undeterred by these draconian tactics, Changing Attitude proceeded with their plans to host the first General Meeting of the Changing Attitude Network in Nigeria in November 2005. It is estimated that approximately 1,000 delegates attended, although this number was strongly refuted by the Church of Nigeria, with some claiming that the event never happened.

Unable to block news reports that offered evidence of faithful gay and lesbian Anglicans residing in Nigeria, the Church of Nigeria then began a smear campaign against Changing Attitude Director Davis Mac-Iyalla. As the Church of Nigeria's website is down at the time of this writing, you can find a tamer version of this scathing "press release" here. The one posted on Nigeria's site mentions Davis Mac-Iyalla by name. The CofE Newspaper carried this story on these accusations.

Changing Attitude has asked the Church of Nigeria to provide evidence to support these allegations, and provided some evidence of their own to refute this attempt to defame the character of Davis Mac-Iyalla.

Rather than respond to what appears to be a case of "bearing false witness", today we are confronted with a new tactic being launched in Nigeria; same sex unions will be outlawed. Archbishop Akinola is quoted in the news report, as well as having his photo included. Note this line from the report:

...Justice Minister Bayo Ojo said the law would also ban "any form of protest to press for rights or recognition" by homosexuals, the AFP news agency reports...

In other words, Changing Attitude members are now identified as outlaws.

Peter Akinola is the most prominent conservative leader in the Anglican Communion. The actions of the Church of Nigeria in this one particular story alone would seem sufficient to give anyone, conservative, liberal or moderate, reason to seriously reconsider if this is the direction the Anglican Communion wants to move in the future.

J.

Anglicanism in 2008

Anglican Postmortem offers us an essay by William R. Coats entitled The End of Anglicanism. It's worth a read. Here's a brief excerpt:

...Soon thereafter the new structure of Anglicanism will come into place following outlines provided by the woeful Windsor Report. There are to be clear lines of authority out of Canterbury in and through our new College of Cardinals, the Primates, with a variety of international committees firmly and subsidiarily in place. Where is the laity? Well, we will squeeze them in somewhere. To top it all off there will be a new covenant: a clear statement of mandated belief, and this time with teeth. Of course there remains one last irony. The Archbishop is still ultimately appointed by none other than the Queen (or, soon, King Charles). Ah, Rule Britannia!

...So come 2008 a newer Anglican Church world will be upon us. I will be proud to have stood firm on the Gene Robinson matter and on the question of the access to the sacraments of the church to homosexual persons. It is worth a split over. And it is still worth maintaining the old Anglican idea. For what did the centralization of power do for Rome? What will it do for Williams and Akinola. They can have it and the eventual corruption and loss of dignity we see whenever power is centralized and unchecked...

That's two predictions I've found this week that the grand finale of the Anglican Drama will be at Lambeth 2008. It's hard for me to imagine that it won't be GC2006. The AAC/Network can only rein in their troops for so long. If something conclusive isn't offered to them soon, they're going to start bolting.

Anyone else planning to be in Columbus in June? I'm not a deputy, but signed up as a "volunteer," so I'll be there. I took a look at the exhibits, and didn't identify too many that might allow a snarky priest in black hat and boots to hang out with them. Any suggestions?

J.

Schism, Incarnation, Heresy and Expectations

Mark Harris has a good post up that is worth reading, if you haven't already; Campaign Stirrings and a New Offensive Strategy. Mark suggests that the date for the "official" schism to begin has been moved once again; this time from GC 2006 to Lambeth 2008. I think it has already started. The evidence is foreign bishops becoming even bolder in plundering parishes in ECUSA in their rush to gain new assessments.

Tobias Haller offers an insightful critique of the basic argument used by the extreme conservatives. I was particularly struck by this point;

...This notion that Eve is of the same substance with Adam is important as a theological point later on: the doctrine of the Incarnation insists that Jesus is of one substance with humanity solely through his mother, Mary: if woman was "missing" something that could only be supplied by a man (which is the ordinary dictionary definition of "complementary") then the Christ could not be fully human - which is heresy...

Speaking of heresy, Karen (who just completed the GOEs...congrats!) has discovered that she's not a heretic after all! Are you a heretic? Take the test. Some of you might be surprised to know that I scored as being "Chalcedon compliant." My second ranking (67%) was Pelagianism, which came as no shock.

BTW, you may have noticed that I removed the label "heretic" from Jake's subtitle and added "eclectic", an adjective that I've always liked, and one that is quite popular among some of my Pagan friends. It is defined as; "Made up of or combining elements from a variety of sources." Some will certainly consider such diversity heretical. But the label "heretic" made Jake too easy of a target. "Eclectic" on the other hand will make some uncomfortable without knowing why, and will lead others to launch a witch hunt, which could be fun.

I get the word this week if my Big Project is a go or a no. Rather anxious about it. I've been working on this since June, and have dropped other commitments to make room for it. One thing that I had to back away from this last weekend has me feeling a bit guilty, but I need to stay focused on the goal. I'm troubled by my own high expectations. I know better than to set myself up for a big fall. But, there it is, just the same.

J.

What Makes a Muslim Laugh?

In light of all the discussion regarding Daniel, I found this new film Looking for Comedy in the Muslim World, intriguing, as it also has great potential for being "politically incorrect."

Here's the story:

The State Department, eager to better understand the cultural gap between the United States and the Middle East, have been directed by the president to make a study of what makes Muslims laugh. Brooks is asked to fly to India and Pakistan and bring back a 500-page report on Muslim humor; told the Medal of Freedom may be his if he comes through, Brooks accepts. With a pair of State Department officials in tow, Stuart (John Carroll Lynch) and Mark (Jon Tenney), and some help from a local assistant, Maya (Sheetal Sheth), Brooks sets out to find the funny bone of India's and Pakistan's Muslim communities...

What will be the reaction to this film planned to be released January 20? Even the film's creator, Albert Brooks, isn't sure:

"This had never happened before," said Mr. Brooks from Los Angeles. "There's been no other American comedy that's made light of anything after 9/11. Nobody knows what will happen. The audience could stand up and walk out, they could boo, who knows? I don't have any road map here. I was told that, 'We think it will be O.K.,' but I was also told that people don't mince words here. If you hit the nail wrongly, it's like your thumb: you know it right away."

Sony dropped the film after Brooks refused to change the title. Warner Independent picked it up. In light of Brook's previous work, I would imagine that this film isn't going to be offensive to anyone. But, most likely, someone will be outraged, regardless of how carefully it was made. The world seems to be on the verge of categorizing laughter as a nonessential commodity. We have given our hearts away...a sordid boon!

J.

From The Witness

Most of you probably read The Witness on a regular basis. For those who are not familiar with this publication that has "been examining the church and society in light of faith and conscience" since 1917, here is an excerpt from their "About Us" page:

...We are deeply committed to raising up the voices of people of faith throughout the world, particularly within the Anglican Communion, to consider justice and peace issues from a broad diversity of cultural and regional perspectives. We embrace the liberation perspective that flows from the very core of Christian belief and values. We side with Jesus' radical claim that every person, every creature, every part of creation belongs to God and deserves the deepest respect and care.

Last month, Sarah Dylan Breuer was named as the new editor of The Witness. Many of us have grown to appreciate Dylan's gifts through reading her insights on the Sunday lessons posted weekly on Dylan's Lectionary Blog. Last September, Dylan was appointed to the Special Commission on the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, which is charged with "preparing the way for General Convention to receive and respond to the Windsor Report." With Dylan at the helm, there is no doubt that The Witness will continue to be a valuable resource which we will need to watch closely.

I was recently honored to be asked to make a small contribution to this publication. Not being much of a scholar, and a lightweight theologian at best, I hesitated at first, feeling such an assignment was really out of my league. Then I noted the way it was described in the ENS article, as "a feisty and opinionated journal." Feisty and opinionated? Hey, I can do that!

So, I offer a reflection on the lessons for 2 Epiphany, focusing on the encounter between Nathanael and Jesus; An Antidote to Prejudice's Poison. Here's an excerpt:

...Jesus is amused by this sudden transformation. "You will see greater things than these," he tells him. "You will see heaven opened and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of Man." Nathanael would have recognized the reference to the story of Jacob's dream of a ladder stretching from earth to heaven. Jacob, the original "Israelite," was quite the rascal, yet was blessed by God. It might just be possible that even a bigot like Nathanael, a tax collector like Matthew, a hothead like Peter, or a sinner like you and me could also be blessed by God and become a follower of the Messiah...

Not terribly scholarly, or theologically profound. But a bit feisty and opinionated it is.

Writing this reflection became an unexpected blessing, as it forced me to struggle with some of the ugly stuff that churns about within me. And, a big plus; most of my preparation for next Sunday's sermon is already done!

J.

"The Book of Daniel" Debuts on Friday

A member of my congregation stepped into my office this week to ask if I had heard about the new show that makes a mockery of the Episcopal Church. She could not recall the name of the show, but I must assume that she was referring to The Book of Daniel, whose first episode will be aired Friday at 9:00 on NBC.

I must also assume that the notion that the show "makes a mockery of the Episcopal Church" comes from the American Family Association's campaign to get this show off the air. Most likely my member got an email from the AFA asking her to help "save Christianity" (and send in a donation, of course).

So why is the AFA so upset? Here is how the January edition of Episcopal Life describes this new series:

An Episcopal priest played by Aidan Quinn is the focus of a new TV drama series starting Jan. 1 on NBC.

The Book of Daniel focuses on the Rev. Daniel Webster’s struggles with family, painkillers, church politics and Jesus, who he converses with as mentor and friend. Garrett Delahunt plays a “hip and modern” Jesus, according to NBC...

David DiCerto offers a review for Catholic Online. He is not exactly thrilled by the show, but does not respond with the knee-jerk reaction of the AFA, most likely because he has actually viewed an episode. DiCerto expresses his concerns regarding how a couple of issues are addressed, but also offers a few more details about the characters and some positive comments:

Rev. Webster himself is wrestling with addiction to prescription painkillers while dealing with wife Judith's (Susanna Thompson) drinking problem (stemming from the loss of a son to cancer). He is also desperately striving to earn the approval of his own stodgy father, Bishop Bertrum Webster (James Rebhorn), a conservative churchman whose wife has Alzheimer's disease.

More sounding board than savior, the show's down-to-earth Jesus, though portrayed with reasonable reverence, is tolerant to the point of being blase: He has a problem with Rev. Webster's pill-popping but dismissively shrugs off Rev. Webster's kids having casual sex in the back seats of cars. On a more commendable note, the writers avoid making Jesus give pat answers to life's often complex problems.

Show creator Jack Kenny, self-described as "in Catholic recovery," deserves credit for presenting a positive and love-affirming view of religion while exploring themes of faith, family, forgiveness and flawed humanity.

From what I have read, the series will introduce a number of issues; addiction, the grieving process, human sexuality, gender roles and religion's place in contemporary culture. No doubt some of these issues will be portrayed in extreme situations, as that is the nature of writing a TV series that people will watch, and most likely not everyone will agree with some of the content. But I think debating if the show portrays "true Christianity" or not misses the point. Such a show's target audience is not necessarily the choir. It honestly reveals that Christians struggle with some of the same problems that everyone else has to deal with. The AFA may object to it's honesty. But personally, I think it is past time to offer an alternative to the stereotypes of Christian elitism portrayed for decades by the televangelists.

As Susan Russell of All Saints, Pasadena said in the Episcopal Life article:

“How cool is it that a progressive Episcopal priest has a shot at being a prime-time drama protagonist,” says the Rev. Susan Russell, associate rector. “How surprising might it be to many who tune in to find out there actually is a church where women can be bishops – clergy can be human – and there’s enough good news around to extend to everybody?”

This show deals with real issues in many people's lives, without giving pat answers. It is a discussion starter, not a problem solver.

To facilitate possible discussions that might arise regarding this show, The Episcopal Diocese of Washington is offering The Blog of Daniel. Jack Kenny, the creator of this show, recently left a comment on this blog that I want to offer in its entirety, as I think it describes much better than the critics the real motivation behind the development of this series:

Hi. I'm the creator of "The Book of Daniel." I just wanted to say thank you for your input and support. I hope we will continue to do you all proud. Our goal has always been to tell a specific story about a man and his family... a man and his flaws... a man and his own personal, private relationship with his faith - in the embodiment of Jesus... how anyone can be offended by this, and deny the opportunity of others to watch it and make up their own minds is a continual source of confusion for me... It was written with nothing but respect and love for the Episcopal church and it's members - a church that my life partner of 23 years belongs to, and a church that I am strongly considering joining. It was always our marching orders, as writers and producers, to never mock or satirize religion, Jesus, or the church in any way, but to treat them with the utmost respect. Yes, we look for humor wherever we can - that's the job of a TV show... Please give us a few chances, and I'm sure you'll be unable NOT to watch these loving, supportive family struggle with all their own flaws and foibles in life... and ultimately overcome them - only to find new ones... because that is, indeed, life! Thanks for your interest, and please stay tuned!
--Jack

Tomorrow night, 9:00.

J.

Top Five in 2005

Bob Carlton of The Corner has invited me to contribute to the listing at Top 5 in 2005. So, here's the five posts that I chose, using no criteria other than the peculiar mood I happen to be in today:

1. Raging Madman or Playful Jester?

2. Facing Fear

3. "Apart From Me, You Can Do Nothing"

4. A History of Horrors

5. Seeking God in the Darkness

Bob suggests that we might also list our five hopes for 2006. Since I'm personally not feeling particularly hopeful at the moment in regards to the future, I'll leave that part of this post up to you. What are your hopes for the coming year?

J.