Tuesday Morning

To try to get through the legislative calendar, all special presntations have been suspended. President Werner asked that we consider the consent of Canon Beisner as bishop coadjuter of Northern California, as he has been in limbo for some days now, before returning to debate on A161. Deputy Rushing rose to suggest that we postpone the consent discussion until after the vote on A161, as that resolution may impact the decision of consents for Canon Beisner.

The issue is that Canon Beisner has been divorced twice and is now married for the third time. A161, as proposed, clearly asks us to "refrain" from the election of bishops who might add to the strains on the bonds of affection within the Anglican Communion. Due to the various stances of the Provinces on divorce and especially multiple divorces, giving consent to Canon Beisner would indeed be a problem for some Provinces. Deputy Rushing's amendment was adopted by the Deputies.

The significance of this is that if some form of A161 is passed, the first situation it will impact will have nothing to do with glbt persons. The precedent will be set to understand it to refer to all manners which will strain the Communion, which one would assume would include a nominee to the episcopate who did not recognize the ordination of women.

Shortly after continuing debate on A161, Deputy Cantrell moved a substitute resolution, which was passed out on the floor. It included all the language of Windsor; calling for a moratorium on glbt bishops and same sex blessings. The amendment was immediately challenged, but the Chair ruled that the amendment was within the Canons. Another Deputy rose to challenge the decision of the Chair, which required a vote. The decision of the Chair was upheld. Then another Deputy challenged if the proposed amendment was in order, as it calls for a moratorium, which our Canons do not give Convention the authority to impose. This required the Chairs of Constitution and Canons and the Parliamentarian to hold a discussion, after which it was announced that one of the resolves of the Cantrell resolution was not in order, but the other two were. Then another deputy arose to challenge that decision. At that point, since no one seemed too clear what was going on, the House adjournned for lunch so that Constitution and Canons could figure things out.

My impression is that the substitute amendment, with the "moratorium" language, will never pass. I think the extremists know this. They simply want the record to show that they presented it and it was rejected, so that they can say "See? They rejected Windsor!"

I predict the ploy is going to backfire. The words of this substitute sound harsh. I think the Deputies have had just about enough of gay bashing. By presenting this substitute with it's grating Windsor language, they have succeeded in turning some of those who were unsure towards being more prepared to have nothing to do with these proposals in any form. I'm now predicting that A161 will fail. Thank you Fort Worth for allowing the Deputies to see what a poor witness to Christ such exclusive and punitive language within this resolution portrays.

J.

Regret and Bishops

This afternoon two Windsor resolutions were considered by the deputies; A160 (expression of regret) and A161 (election of bishops).

A160 was amended and adopted. Here is its final form:

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that the 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church, mindful of “the repentance, forgiveness, and reconciliation enjoined on us by Christ” (Windsor Report, paragraph 134), express its regret for straining the bonds of affection in the events surrounding the General Convention of 2003 and the consequences which followed; offer its sincerest apology to those within our Anglican Communion who are offended by our failure to accord sufficient importance to the impact of our actions on our church and other parts of the Communion; and ask forgiveness as we seek to live into deeper levels of communion one with another.

The insertion of the term "straining" in place of the phrase "breaching the proper constraints" was the amendment.

This may seem like a minor change, but the discussion that led up to it was quite revealing. The amendment was offered because it was argued that "breaching" was too severe of a term to use to describe our current situation. Some parts of the communion are angry with one another. We're having a family argument. What the deputies would not accept was the premise that there is a serious "breach" in the relationship. Some Deputies listed our many friends and supporters throughout the Communion. The amended resolution passed by roughly 500 to 200 votes. The significance in this is that a good majority of the Deputies seem to not be taking the prophets of gloom and doom seriously. Also note that among those who voted against this resolution were a mixture of those who wanted it in stronger terms (keeping in the "breaching" language) and those who felt that there was nothing to apologize for.

Next was the discussion of A161. This is the biggie. Here it is in its current state:

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, that the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church regrets the extent to which we have, by action and inaction, contributed to strains on communion and caused deep offense to many faithful Anglican Christians as we consented to the consecration of a bishop living openly in a same-gender union. Accordingly, we are obliged to urge nominating committees, electing conventions, Standing Committees, and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise very considerable caution refrain from the nomination, election, consent to, and consecration of bishops whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.; and be it further

Resolved that this General Convention not proceed to develop or authorize Rites for the Blessing of same-sex unions at this time, thereby concurring with the Windsor Report in its exhortation to bishops of the Anglican Communion to honor the Primates’ Pastoral Letter of May 2003; and be it further

Resolved that this General Convention affirm the need to maintain a breadth of responses to situations of pastoral care for gay and lesbian Christians in this Church.

Resolved that this General Convention apologize to those gay and lesbian Episcopalians and their supporters hurt by these decisions.

The bolded italicized words were the amendments made by the legislative committee. The strikeout is the language originally proposed by the Special Commission.

There was no vote on this resolution today, although debate commenced, to be concluded tomorrow morning. I don't think this new language will be adopted. At least I certainly hope not. "Refrain from" is the very definition of the term "moratorium." This will place human limitations on the movement of the Holy Spirit. It will also go beyond what the canons of the Episcopal Church requires for one to be considered as a nominee to the episcopate.

There seems to be some desire to pass something in response to the Windsor Report. I don't know if this resolution will be defeated. I think the best hope is to amend it; possibly returning it to the original language of "considerable caution."

I heard that the House of Bishops may not accept the amendment to A160 (changing "breaching" to "straining"). This is curious, as A161 uses that kind of language to describe the situation ("...contributed to strains on communion").

Since the response to the blessing of same sex unions was combined into A161 by the legislative committee, this resolution will be the critical one. My plan right now is to point my pony for home as soon as the Deputies deal with this one.

To the right is a familiar face. Prior Aelred and I listened to the above proceeding together from the peanut gallery.

J.

Dr. Williams and Bp. Iker Respond to New PB

Thinking Anglicans provides us with both statements.

Note that it took Dr. Williams 20 hours to release this rather weak expression of support. One must assume that he had to form and consult with yet another special committee before proceeding.

And the Prince Bishop of Fort Worth wants Alternative Primatial Oversight (will this now be referred to as APO? If we include the first two letters of the first term, we'd get ALPO...just a thought). The pomposity of Bishop Iker is an embarrassment to all Anglicans.

J.

The Confession of a Recovering Chauvinist

Shortly after the nominees for Presiding Bishop were announced, I was asked to write an essay for the Witness about what the choice of nominees might tell us regarding the state of the Episcopal Church. During the process of writing that essay, I had many conversations by e-mail with Dylan Breuer, the editor of the Witness. My first impression was that Bishop Alexander was by far the best choice. Dylan kept mentioning the gifts of Bishop Jefferts Schori, which caused me to take a closer look. Although that look helped me see that Bishop Jefferts Schori was indeed an excellent choice, I remained supportive of Bishop Alexander, primarily for the same reason I'm hesitant to fully support Hilary Clinton; she's not electable.

There it is, folks; the confession of a recovering chauvinist. I grew up in a time when the assumption at home and in the world was that men would always be in charge of most everything. That kind of thinking remained deeply ingrained, until my two daughters were born. Raising them in such a world made me begin to question such assumptions. When they became old enough, they helped me with that questioning process by constantly pointing out when I was responding from my chauvinist perspective. The truth is, if I'm not paying attention, that is still the way I view the world. But most times I catch myself before saying or doing something that signals that I really think males are the superior gender of the species. Thus the label I've given myself; a chauvinist in recovery.

I suspect that is part of the reason I dismissed Bishop Schori as a real possibility for Presiding Bishop. I don't think it was a conscious reason, but it does ring true to some of my sense of shock when her election was announced.

Yesterday afternoon, the House of Deputies was moving through their legislative business. At one point, President Werner announced that the chair of consecrations would be stepping up to the podium. An excited buzz immediately filled the air. The back of the huge room began to fill up with visitors and guests as the word went out that we might have an election. I moved to the entrance to try to get a glimpse of who was coming and going from the floor. Then, President Werner announced that he had been misinformed, and returned the House to legislative business.

But, the word was out that something was going on. People continued to fill the room, speculating on the content of the anticipated announcements. I have no idea what pieces of legislation were discussed during this time, as the chatter all around me made it impossible to hear the discussion. This went on for what seemed like almost an hour, although it may have only been a few minutes. Time seems suspended at moments like this.

A friend walked by with a big grin on his face. He stopped near me and whispered in my ear, "I hear it's Katherine." I was floored. I saw Rodney Hudgens not far away, and headed toward him to share the news. But I never had the chance. The announcement was made, and the floor became chaos. Screams of shock, cheers of joy, hugs, high fives and applause erupted.

Since I'd been forewarned, I quickly got past the shock (which I suspect included some element of a chauvinistic response...I mean, she's JUST a woman...mea culpa), but, thank God, I'm in recovery, and so was able to move past that to see the implications of this.

I moved to the door, looking for a phone and a computer.

And the implications are quite phenomenal. We have elected a woman as the President of the House of Deputies and as Presiding Bishop. As I headed out the door, I found myself reflecting on what Richard Tarnas said in The Passion of the Western Mind regarding how it has become essential for us to reintegrate the feminine into our perspective of reality. This morning I discovered that one of the relevant excerpts from his book is available on the net:

...The driving impulse of the West's masculine consciousness has been its dialectical quest not only to realize itself, to forge its own autonomy, but also, finally, to recover its connection with the whole, to come to terms with the great feminine principle in life: to differentiate itself from but then rediscover and reunite with the feminine, with the mystery of life, of nature, of soul. And that reunion can now occur on a new and profoundly different level from that of the primordial unconscious unity, for the long evolution of human consciousness has prepared it to be capable at last of embracing the ground and matrix of its own being freely and consciously. The telos, the inner direction and goal, of the Western mind has been to reconnect with the cosmos in a mature participation mystique, to surrender itself freely and consciously in the embrace of a larger unity that preserves human autonomy while also transcending human alienation.

But to achieve this reintegration of the repressed feminine, the masculine must undergo a sacrifice, an ego death. The Western mind must be willing to open itself to a reality the nature of which could shatter its most established beliefs about itself and about the world. This is where the real act of heroism is going to be. A threshold must now be crossed, a threshold demanding a courageous act of faith, of imagination, of trust in a larger and more complex reality; a threshold, moreover, demanding an act of unflinching self-discernment. And this is the great challenge of our time, the evolutionary imperative for the masculine to see through and overcome its hubris and one-sidedness, to own its unconscious shadow, to choose to enter into a fundamentally new relationship of mutuality with the feminine in all its forms. The feminine then becomes not that which must be controlled, denied, and exploited, but rather fully acknowledged, respected, and responded to for itself. It is recognized: not the objectified "other," but rather source, goal, and immanent presence...

We have crossed the "threshold demanding a courageous act of faith." Now, for some of us recovering chauvinists, there may need to be a form of "ego death." But, as Bishop Griswold has constantly reminded us, God's passion, and so ours, is for the world, not the Church. So let us allow the paradigm of violent confrontation to die, for the sake of the world.

In regards to those who will claim that by taking this action the Episcopal Church has rushed to be the first in yet another category, I simply have this to say; I don't think we have any reason to apologize for recognizing what Tarnas refers to as our "evolutionary imperative" and having the courage to act on our convictions.

There is no question in my mind that future generations will look back on the events here in Columbus and mark them as a significant step towards the healing of the wounds of this world. We have followed the wind of the Spirit, and we trust that the will of God will never lead us where the grace of God cannot keep us.

J.

Who Is Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori?

Here's some links for those who might want to get to know our new Presiding Bishop better;

The initial biography provided shortly after she was nominated.

The video interview offered by ENS.

My article on the nominees that appeared in the Witness.

The follow-up article in the Witness; In Their Own Words: Katharine Jefferts Schori.

Louie Crew's interview.

Ruth Gledhill's article (posted today).

The election results. Note that Bishop Jefferts Schori was the leading nominee from the first ballot.

J.

UPDATE: Lisa has pointed us to some good commentary on what this election might mean, offered by our friend Jim Naughton over on the Daily Episcopalian.

House of Deputies Consent to Election of Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop

Out of 108 dioceses, I believe that consent was granted by 96 in the lay order, and 95 in the clerical order. A big majority.

And so we have a new Presiding Bishop. The House of Bishops have been sequestered at Trinity Church. Now that the Deputies have consented, the new PB is making her way here to address us.

A couple of intial thoughts: Bishop Jefferts Schori was trained as a scientist. She is the only one that I can recall that emphasized the Millennium Development Goals in the interviews. She was also the only bishop who testified at the hearings regarding the MDG. As these goals appear to be emerging as the future vision of the Episcopal Church, she is the right person at the right time.

Absolutely no one I talked to before the election had predicted this. What a wonderful surprise. The Deputies are absolutely elated. Eveything happening here is begininng to stream together.

The Spirit is moving among us. God is doing a new thing in Columbus.

I need to go offer a prayer of thanksgiving.

J.

Bishops Elect Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop

Unbelievable!

The first woman Primate of any Anglican Province was just elected by the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church!

What a message to the world! We are a Church who will move with the radically inclusive Spirit of the Living God, even if that same Spirit leads us into uncharted territory.

Praise God!

J.

A Curious Absence

Yesterday morning, General Convention offered a Eucharist which included the ingathering of the United Thank Offering. This is a prominent event at Convention.

Representatives from each diocese were called by name to come forward and present their UTO offering. I found it curious that when two dioceses were called, Fort Worth and Dallas, no one came forward.

Later in the day, I was told that the extremists had held an "alternative" Eucharist of their own at 11:00 at the Arena, which is near the Convention Center. I cannot confirm this, but I strongly suspect that it is true.

What we do know is that on at least one occasion, the extremists did indeed hold an "alternative" Eucharist at the Nationwide Arena, with Bp. Beckworth of Springfield presiding. In that case, it was offered at the same time as the Integrity sponsored Eucharist at Trinity.

But, if they are providing "alternative" Eucharists at the same time as the scheduled worship of Convention, that is quite a different matter. One must assume that such secret gatherings are occuring, as it was made clear that some of the extremists would shun the tainted gifts offered by the Episcopal Church.

If anyone wants to refute my assertion that clandestine Eucharists are being held in Columbus, I'll certainly be willing to listen, and retract my words if ample evidence to the contrary is offered.

Why does it matter? Because it reveals that the extremists who are testifying at hearings and speaking at Convention are engaging in double talk. If they cannot even bring themselves to break bread with their supposed brothers and sisters in Christ, it is quite obvious that they are saying that they have no need of us. They have no desire for reconciliation. The game plan has not changed. The goal remains nothing less than the destruction of the Episcopal Church, with a new Province established to take her place.

Yet the extremists at Convention are accusing TEC of a lack of "honesty" and "clarity," while they cloak their real motives and spread the ugliest of lies about the leadership of TEC.

Let's strive for clarity here. When General Convention is over, Gene Robinson will still be a bishop. No one, including the Windsor Report, the Primates, or the Archbishop of Canterbury have suggested that removing Gene was even a consideration. Yet, this is the only thing that will satisfy the extremists, which is quite clear if one even gives a cursory reading of their conversations.

The Telegraph recently reported that at least three dioceses are ready to bolt, regardless of what is done at General Convention. The plan has not changed.

We need to keep our eyes wide open, and recognize what kind of people we are struggling with. If our communion is too contaminated for them to stomache, I would suggest that our committees, appointments, and all postions of leadership should also not be made available to them.

J.

Words From the Heart

Take a look at Elizabeth Kaeton's moving story.

...There will be a split in this church that I so dearly love. I – and every other lesbian, gay man, bisexual and transgender person in the Episcopal Church – knows that we will be blamed.

And, we’ll also know that it’s not really our fault.

My enemies will hate me. Lord have mercy, how they will hate me!

But now, having been held as I cried, I think I can love them anyway.

This story of Convention needs to be considered a microcosm that reflects the macrocosm for some in the Episcopal Church. It is a terribly sad story, yet offers hope, if we keep Elizabeth's message in mind..."love them anyway."

J.

Some Thoughts from Lionel

As I sat down at the computer today, Lionel Deimel took the seat next to me. Lionel has written two essays previously discussed here at Jake's place. He has graciously offered a few of his thoughts regarding the current situation here in Columbus:

After being at General Convention for several days, I have a new appreciation for the wisdom of the old saying about not wanting to see either sausage or legislation being made. Making legislation is a messy and difficult process.

The legislative committee working on our response to the Anglican Communion is working hard (and overtime), but they seem focused on wording without having a consensus as to what they are trying to do. Pray for the committee.

Here is a better plan. The committee should develop its own consensus about

(1) what is the situation in which the church finds itself, and

(2) what the church is willing and not willing to do.

Answers to these questions should be in hand before deciding what the church should declare in its resolutions. Perhaps there should even be a third step in this process, namely, deciding where to introduce ambiguity to make the greatest number of readers, important ones anyway, as happy as we can conscientiously make them.

The above program is, I think, good advice, irrespective of the direction the legislative committee decides to go. Here, however, is what I might suggest for step 1. From what I have seen, it would not be step 1 for this committee. It is something to think about, however:

Although we do not regret what we did at the 74th General Convention, we regret that some have taken offense at our actions.

We are eager to do anything in our power to explain our actions and explain why we believe they were appropriate for our province in 2003.

Moreover, we are distressed by attempts by some elements of the Anglican Communion to change the nature of our relationship without discussion or agreement on the part of all provinces.

We are willing to discuss the nature of our Communion, but we believe that what affects all should be decided by all, and we therefore will consider the nature of the Anglican Communion to be unchanged from what it has always been until such time as there is a unanomous agreement that it is to be otherwise.

We stand where we do not simply for ourselves, but for all Anglican provinces and their members.

J.

Pointing to an Ohio Blogger

In case you missed it in the comments, I wanted to point you to Faithful in Ohio. Renee is providing us with transcripts of sermons and some reflections that are worth a read.

Here is her transcript of Part 1 of Bp. Curry's sermon at the U2charist.

Here is Part 2 of the sermon.

And, here is a wonderful reflection on Bp. Gene Robinson, with a promise of a future transcript of his sermon given last night at the Integrity Eucharist (be careful what you promise, Renee...now we're going to hold you to it!).

J.

Thoughts from an Observer

During my time here, I've been a lone wolf, by choice. Since I have no voice or vote, and am not identified with any particular group here, I've had the freedom to simply be an observer.

So, what have I observed? The two outside events that attracted the largest attendance have been the U2charist and the Integrity Eucharist. The people gathered here care about justice and reconciliation. The onsite event that drew the largest crowd, outside of worship and legislative sessions, was the hearing on Windsor and the Communion Wednesday night. The people gathered here care about being a part of the Anglican Communion, if we can do so and still uphold our commitment to justice and reconciliation.

From listening to the legislative sessions and personal conversations, I have also observed that the dioceses have done a good job of choosing their delegates. The people gathered here are a sharp group of folks, who have done their homework. They are well informed, and take seriously the charge they have been given. They are also independent thinkers. They understand that they were elected to be Deputies, not delegates.

The people gathered here also give the worship of God a high priority. I arrived late one morning and found the hallways and exhibit area almost abandoned, as everyone was gathered together for Eucharist. When a prayer is offered, everyone stops what they are doing immediately. The Spirit of the living God permeates every space in which these people gather.

The people gathered here express care, and even affection for one another. I have heard no raised voices, no angry rants, but much courtesy and respect, even in moments of disagreement. There is little evidence of anxiety of any kind; just the opposite, in fact. I've been amazed that after four days, the most common facial expression one encounters is still a sincere smile. As one wanders down the hall, the loudest sound is regular bursts of laughter.

The people gathered here have welcomed me as a member of the family. All they know about me is that by my presence, I am identifying myself as an Episcopalian. And that is all that matters. As this lone wolf prowls the perimeter (couldn't resist that one) people initiate conversations, share stories, and offer advice as if I was an old friend. This easy acceptance has touched me deeply.

Now, maybe all of this will change as the next days unfold and more divisive issues are addressed. I don't know. But, one of the reasons I decided to take this trip was to get a feel of where the Church is right now; to take a barometer reading of sorts, leaning more on intuitive and emotive signals rather than the intellectual and scholarly content of the interactions.

My conclusion at this point is that the Episcopal Church is healthier and more well adjusted than I could have possibly hoped for. God continues to bless us, and the people gathered here have been a personal blessing to me.

Regarding the hot issues, here's my thoughts at the moment. If our experience of the larger Church is limited to the internet, we've developed an unrealistic picture of the situation. The reality of the people gathered here is that there are two poles with, at the most, 20% in each camp. And, for the most part, while listening respectfully to both camps, no preference is given to either. The other 60% know they are the majority, and will make the final decisions.

I don't think this 60% would identify themselves as "moderates," but neither would they claim the labels of "conservative" or "progressive". They are well informed independent thinkers who love God, and God's Church, and will do their best to do justice, love mercy and walk humbly before God.

I think we can trust the people gathered here to do everything they can do, and leave the rest up to God. If you disagree with them, (and I have little doubt that I will end up disagreeing with some of their decisions as well) by all means speak your mind. But don't start lobbing personal attacks towards them. Because, you see, the people gathered here are my family, and yours as well.

J.

Bishops Amend A159 and Send It Back to Deputies

The resolution affirming our relationship with the Anglican Communion, A159, which was adopted by the Deputies yesterday, has been amended by the House of Bishops, who inserted the term "autonomous" (which, ironically, was one of the proposed amendments voted down by the Deputies yesterday).

Most likely the deputies will further amend A166 (Covenant), and send it back to the Bishops.

I'm not sure it is being consciously done, but it's beginning to look like both Houses are hesitant to vote down any of the 11 Windsor resolutions (A159 - A169), but will continue to amend them to death, literally. It's already Thursday, and so far they have only tackled two, and it could be argued the easiest of the 11, and they seem unable to get a consensus on them. I don't see how they are all going to be resolved by Wednesday (which will not necessarily be a bad thing).

J.

Bishops Adopt Covenant Development

The House of Bishops have adopted A166 (found in its amended form here) and has sent it on to the House of Deputies.

There is hope that the Deputies will defeat this resolution, even with the amendments that add the language of "separate" and "autonomous." The concept of a Covenant is troublesome in and of itself, but beyond that, when we keep in mind that we are the only Province considering this, meaning that the process we describe by such a resolution will have to be affirmed by the other Provinces, there seems to be a slim chance that such a resolution will have any long-term value, beyond agreeing in the building of new and higher fences around the Church.

There is some speculation that the House of Bishops doesn't really care for this process either, and is anticipating that the Deputies will be the ones to shoot it down. If such is the case, I pray we accomodate them.

J.

Toward a Reconciled World

Before commenting on tonight's forum, let me first point you to the information that is being provided to us regarding the testimony of the Archbishop of York at the Windsor hearing last night:

The Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, said toward the end of the hearing that the Windsor Report was acting like a doctor, saying a relationship needs to be healed.

"Anglicanism has always responded to the challenge ... by scripture, reason and tradition," he said. "Maybe the committee should ask: do these resolutions help us ourselves ... to show the marks of our own crucifixion?"

Andrew Gerns offers us much more of the content of the Archbishop's testimony. He also had the opportunity to have a very revealing personal conversation with the Archbishop:

...I asked him if regret had to with actually consecrating +Gene, and he said no. Our regret must turn on how we needed to get a wider consensus in the Communion. We cannot, and must not, 'take back' +Gene's election and consecration. Our regret is that we did not make the case to the rest of the Communion as to the biblical basis for what God is calling us to do...

The Presiding Bishop's Forum: Toward a Reconciled World, which was held tonight, has already been covered by Convention news (someone is on the ball on that site). The quotes in their article are more accurate than my notes, so I'll spare you my rendition. But I will mention the specific quotes (not verbatim) from Bishop Griswold and Senator Danforth that caused those present to break out in applause, and a couple of things not in the article I found significant;

Bp. Griswold: "God's concern is the world, not the Church." (applause)

Sen. Danforth: "Is sexual orientation the most important issue in the Episcopal Church? The public doesn't care who we elect as bishop, and I bet many in the pews don't either!" (applause)

Sen. Danforth: "We've always seen ourselves as the middle way...we can gather around the altar with our differences..." (applause)

Senator Danforth suggested that every time someone tries to get us to talk about a divisive issue, we preface everything we say with, "The main point is the ministry of reconciliation."

He also cautioned us that a broken church cannot offer a witness to the world of being able to offer anything of lasting value. He called us to find a way to mend the brokeness.

I'll be sitting in on an early morning hearing tomorrow, so time to call it a night.

J.

Contributing to the People's Revolution

From the Washington Times:

The battle of the blogs is in full swing at the Episcopal General Convention meeting in Columbus, Ohio..."It's a whole different game now," said a Canadian clergyman operating one of the sites. "It's 'The people's revolution hits the ground"... Local blogs include Daily Episcopalian (blogofdaniel.com), operated by Diocese of Washington spokesman Jim Naughton, and Baby Blue Online (babybluecafe.blogspot.com), written by Mary Ailes, a vestrywoman at Truro Episcopal Church in Fairfax...

...There's also Preludium, posted on anglicanfuture.blogspot.com by the Rev. Mark Harris, an Episcopal priest from Delaware; In a Godward Direction, posted at jintoku.blogspot.com by Bronx cleric Rev. Tobias Haller; and An Inch at a Time, posted at inchatatime.blogspot.com by the Rev. Susan Russell, president of the homosexual caucus Integrity...

...Things got so heated in cyberspace last week that the Very Rev. Paul Zahl, dean of Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry, criticized the "character assassination" by liberal and conservative blogs in an essay on the titusonenine site.

"People are saying and implying things, without substantiation or information, about personalities," he wrote, "and this comes under an old category: libel."

That entry was shot down by one "Father Jake," a New Jersey priest who posts at Frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com. Pointing out that the dean recently linked the prospect of Episcopalians electing a second homosexual bishop to a terrorist bomb, "I think he needs to begin by cleaning up his own house," wrote the priest, who does not give his full name.

The media is turning to the blogs for news. We're part of "the people's revolution." Imagine that. This is becoming fun.

J.

Reaffirming our Commitment to the Communion

Resolution A159, as amended, was just adopted by the House of Deputies. It can be seen in its amended form on the legislation site of General Convention found here.

There were two attempts to amend the resolution; one wanted to insert the word "independent," the other the word "autonomous." Both were defeated. I suspect that the fact that Ian Douglas spoke against both amendments had something to do with their sound defeat.

The vote was almost unanimous. And so we begin consideration of the Special Commission's resolutions, which will define our response to the Windsor Report, and point the direction of our future relationship with the Anglican Communion.

J.

Voices of Witness

Jason, my friend from seminary, showed me this video just yesterday. It is quite good. You can now view it online here.

As it is described on the site:

Welcome to Voices of Witness, a Claiming the Blessing production to provide the church our witness as Christians, and as gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people of great faith. We witness to the message of God's inclusive love in the world, and as a testament to the power of living lives in service and love to all of God's creation.

J.

The Distraction From Durham and Tonight's Testimonies

Regarding the curious timing of a new statement by the Bishop of Durham which claims that the proposed resolutions of General Convention are not “Windsor compliant”, I refer you to Jim Naughton’s essay which includes excellent commentary as well as the text of Bp. Wright’s paper.

First of all, as was pointed out in tonight’s hearings, since the Bishop of Durham has clergy in his own diocese who are openly gay, it is rather questionable if he is really the one who can decide who is “Windsor compliant” and who is not, unless he is a “do as I say, not as I do” type of bishop, or one who would claim that gay priests are acceptable according to the spirit of Windsor (I doubt if Peter Akinola would accept such a splitting of hairs). If the truth were told, and we recognize that those who are demanding "Windsor compliance" are really calling for an end of all ordinations of those who don't live up to their standards, I think it would be difficult to find a bishop anywhere who is “Windsor compliant,” if we include those who continue the “don’t ask don’t tell” approach to the issue.

Second of all, one can quote a variety of bishops from outside the Episcopal Church on any number of issues to support whatever position one were to choose. For instance, to counter Bp. Wright, I could quote Bp. Eames:

…In short, I think we find ourselves in a situation where the North American churches have taken the Windsor Report, and the subsequent Statement of the Primates at Dromantine, extremely seriously, and have complied, in so far as it lies within the power of bodies less than their national synod, to meet the requests made of them…

Third of all, the Bishop of Durham needs to keep in mind that the Windsor Report is just that; nothing more and nothing less. The fact that he is an excellent biblical scholar, and was part of the team that drafted the document, does not give him the authority to now, at this late hour in our deliberations, issue ultimatums. As Susan Russell recently said;

…What we know is that we are here in Columbus ready to move forward in mission and ministry while others are intent on drawing lines in the sand issuing ultimatums and piloting an Anglican version of the ridiculously popular game show, "Deal or No Deal."

Here's what we know: the Episcopal Church is smarter than that, more faithful than that and more determined to live out its historic commitment to the Gospel imperative than that. That's what we know.

Now, regarding tonight’s hearings; my source was apparently misinformed. There were so many “testimonies” at tonight’s hearing on the Windsor Report and the Anglican Communion that when I finally left after 9:00, there were still 30 more speakers scheduled. The hearing room was filled to capacity.

I’ll mention just a few of the testimonies, using my notes, which are far from verbatim transcripts.

The first testimony was from Zoe Cole, who opposed the Special Commission’s resolutions, because she felt that they were a compromise, and a denial of the Holy Spirit that has spoken through us and our legislative process.

Kendall Harmon spoke of the need for clarity in regards to resolution A161. He stated that the Windsor Report asked for a moratorium, and characterized the resolution’s language as “fudge.” He asked for more honesty.

Michael Hopkins told us that it is difficult to take seriously Lambeth 1.10 or the Windsor Report when lbgt persons were excluded from the conversations that resulted in those documents.

Dylan Breuer spoke of her experience as a member of the commission that developed these resolutions. She told us that it wasn’t “politics as usual,” but a powerful experience of God’s grace. She called for Convention to accept the resolutions as proposed.

One speaker, whose name I missed, suggested that we continue a moratorium on consecrating bishops until the 76th General Convention in 2009. Although this doesn’t have a chance, I rather approve of the idea. Instead of only one group carrying the load of a compromise, let’s share it throughout the Church, and give the Communion a sign of our unity.

Bishop Henderson of Upper South Carolina, who chaired the hearing, would call up the speakers six at a time. As he read one list of six, a ripple of chuckles passed through the room, as he called up Robert Duncan, followed by Gene Robinson. Bp. Henderson said, with a grin, “I’m just reading from the list!”

Bishop Duncan quoted from the Bishop of Durham’s 11th hour ultimatum, and stated the question under consideration was “will ECUSA comply or not?” He suggested that there were two kinds of people coming to the Episcopal Church; those drawn by her catholic and evangelical tradition, and those who join because of her revolutionary nature.

As an aside, someone I spoke to after the hearing had initially confused Duncan and Robinson, having never met either one. When I asked how she could have made such a mistake, she told me that she had noticed that Bp. Duncan’s clerical collar was only fastened on one side, giving him a rather disheveled appearance. My friend was disheartened, as she imagined the possibility that Bp. Robinson had slipped in his recovery!

After Bp. Duncan had concluded his comments, and Bp. Robinson began his, Bp. Jack Iker of Fort Worth and his entourage stood and processed out of the room. Personally, I found this to be quite rude, but unfortunately, not a surprise.

Bishop Robinson asked us where we see Christ. He defined the “homosexual agenda” as being Jesus Christ; that through Christ he discovered that he was not an abomination, but a repentant sinner who is loved by God.

Martyn Minns told a bizarre story about an adulterous husband who refused to repent. Personally, I found it quite offensive to be called an unrepentant adulterer.

David Roseberry followed with a play on the “Can you hear me now?” commercial. He used his testimony as an opportunity to plug the clergy petition calling for Windsor compliance, which he proudly announced as having 1,064 priests’ signatures. Keep in mind that is roughly one eighth of the active clergy. If you count retired priests, it would be about one sixteenth.

Colin Coward told of being part of a group that was not allowed to testify before Lambeth in 1998. He is also the person who mentioned the fact that the Bishop of Durham has gay priests in his diocese who are out.

Lionel Deimel reminded us that if we pass these resolutions, we will have redefined the Anglican Communion.

About that time, I had to leave to catch the last bus back to the hotel.

It’s difficult to say what the legislative committee is going to do with all of this information. It appears that those who support the proposed resolutions are in the minority. Both progressives and conservatives oppose them, for different reasons. I doubt very much if the committee will have anything ready to present any earlier than Sunday.

J.

UPDATE: It is being reported that the Archbishop of York testified after I left. Dang bus! I'll let you know when that is verified, and try to offer a summary of his comments.

Deputies Elect President

Bonnie Anderson, the current Vice-President of the House of Deputies, was unanimously elected as the House's new President. This election was necessary because George Werner, who has been President for some time, was not re-elected as a Deputy this year by the Diocese of Pittsburgh. George will be honored for his years of service on Saturday at 5:00 p.m. Most likely that explains the guy with the camera following him around; we'll be offered some form of a video presentation.

Our response to the Windsor Report is being discussed. Two hearings were held yesterday. In the afternoon, resolution A0159 (Commitment to Interdependence in the Anglican Communion) was discussed, along with other related resolutions (C004, C009, C014, C025, C027, Co37, C038 C039 and C042). The evening hearings considered A165 (Commitment to Windsor and the Listening Process) and A166 (Anglican Covenant Development Process). Tonight we will discuss A160, A161, A162 and A163.

What's interesting is that I'm told that there's been few people signing up to speak at tonight's hearing. Yesterday, from what I understand (I was with Bono and Bp. Curry) there were some powerful statements offered by Susan Russell and Martyn Minns, but little content beyond that.

This afternoon I sat in on the legislative committee meeting charged with bringing some form of these resolutions before Convention. Although there was no question that the members of this committee are a competent and very capable group, I found the experience troubling. Maybe it was because they had an audience listening in, but each speaker seemed to take forever to make a statement. I listened for about an hour to a debate over how exactly to reference "the listening process" (should it be Lambeth 1.10, or the Windsor Report, or the ACC statement?) until I finally left to seek more coffee.

I spoke with a few people today, and here's my general impression; there's not much energy left for these debates. As I mentioned last night, folks are ready to move on. This is both a good and a bad thing. It's good because it seems to me that it is past time to move on and focus on the mission of the Church. But, it's bad because it appears that there is a good possibility that some Deputies might support those resolutions which will most quickly and efficiently put past debates behind us. If the decisions they are charged to make are rushed, we may find either a confused message being the result, or one that unnecessarily puts us at odds with much of the Anglican Communion.

In other news, Archbishop Rowan Williams has sent a message to Convention. As a man who is known to carefully choose his words, there's a couple of comments regarding the Windsor Report that are worth noting:

The recommendations of the Windsor Report will be much in your minds and your deliberations, and I appreciate the work your Commissions and Committees have done in responding to the Windsor Process...Windsor is not the end of the story, but it sets out a positive picture of what that might imply as together we strive to serve the mission of God.

Rowan has picked up the phrase introduced by the Special Commission; "the Windsor Process". And, to make sure we understand, he makes his meaning even more clear by stating "Windsor is not the end of the story..." This is encouraging, to say the least.

More after tonight's hearing.

J.

Something Totally Unexpected and Wonderful

Last night's U2charist ended up being an event that went way beyond my expectations. The ballroom was packed, with people of every age. The energy of the crowd crackled as if currents of electricity were flowing through the room. Bishop Curry of North Carolina preached a sermon that had us all shouting, clapping and leaping to our feet. Renee is planning on posting a transcript of Bp. Curry's sermon.

What was all the excitement about? Making poverty history. Being a witness to the healing power of God in the name of love. Saying to the world that it is no longer acceptable for a child to die because there's not enough food or vaccinations against disease.

Bishop Curry quoted a portion of Bp. Steven Charleston's message What Witness Will We Make?:

...In my life I have known many seasons in the Episcopal Church. This is the season for our witness. This is the time for us to do something totally unexpected and wonderful, to confound those who say we have lost our vision. This is our moment to show the world that we can practice what we preach and be who we say we are...

Last night it suddenly dawned on me that the Episcopal Church has moved on from a focus on human sexuality issues. We are doing an unexpected and wonderful new thing. We have a new vision emerging. We have seen the movement of God's Spirit, and are beginning to join that dance.

What are the specifics of this vision? Episcopalians for Global Reconciliation spells things out well for us, and offers practical suggestions of what we can do. The vision is focused around making the Millennium Development Goals a reality:

1. Eradicate extreme hunger and poverty.
2. Achieve universal primary education.
3. Promote gender equality and empower women.
4. Reduce child mortality.
5. Improve maternal health.
6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria, and other diseases.
7. Ensure environmental sustainability.
8. Develop a global partnership for development.

We are not going to retreat from where the Holy Spirit has led us in the past. But we're not going to allow the debate of those decisions to dominate our current discussions. The wind of the Spirit has moved on, and so must we.

One man come in the name of love
One man come and go
One come he to justify
One man to overthrow

In the name of love
What more in the name of love
In the name of love
What more in the name of love

J.

Setting Up Camp Columbus

The pony did well until West Virginia, when she developed a serious miss in one cylinder. I suspect a plug or plug wire. So, I'll be getting greasy this week. Sure not going to let a local get his hands on her (especially with NJ plates). The new memory stick for the camera isn't working. The internet connection at the hotel is really bad...off again, on again. Ok, enough whining...

The Exhibit Hall is absolutely amazing. It seems to be where most of the folks congregate, when not in sessions. I think every organization and church supply company has a booth.
I ran into Dylan Breuer at The Witness booth. Dylan and I have worked on a couple of things together, but this is the first time we've met in person. I had to whisper, "Dylan, it's Jake!" Heh. She is as lively in person as she is online. I'm looking forward to more conversations over the next days.


I also bumped into a seminary classmate, Jason Samuel, who is now Vicar of the Church of the Transfiguration in Lake St. Louis, MO. I haven't seen Jason for about 16 years. It was good to catch up. Jason would be comfortable here at Jake's place. So, for those keeping score, that makes at least two Nashotah House graduates who are progressive. Don't be too quick to put us all in the same box; some of us learned how to crawl out.

As I was checking in to the hotel, Prior Aelred came walking in. I didn't have the camera ready, but I'll try to catch up with him another time this week.

As far as the business of Convention, I have no idea what is going on...sorry. I saw a few bishops I recognized, and George Werner was all over the place, with a young man with a video camera following him everywhere he went. Don't know what's up with that. There were a couple of groups of men in clericals engaged in some serious conversation, but they didn't look exactly approachable, so I steered clear. The overall feeling, in public at least, was much more that of a state fair, rather than a gathering to make some serious decisions. But, hey, I'm a newbie...maybe the fair ambiance is the norm?

Tonight is the U2charist at the Renaissance Hotel. Need get cleaned up, find some food, and head over there.

Oh, almost forgot...the "I am a Witness" pins made it to Columbus as well.

J.

Columbus Bound

Nine hours on my pony, and then breakfast in Columbus.

In the meantime, here's something to chew on: a dialog between Lionel Deimel and Christopher Wells regarding their two essays addressing the Special Commission's resolutions.

The open road awaits.

J.

Mark Harris: The Stirrings in Columbus

From Preludium:

...On the resolutions related to the Windsor Report: The stirrings and mutterings are many, but some things stand out on this first day:

As was said at the Integrity meeting Sunday night, it is unfair to put the future of the Anglican Communion on the back of Gay and Lesbian members of this church. So in that sense, the Windsor Report which claims to be about communion has become the instrument of blame regarding brokenness and the Lesbian and Gay community is asked to bear the burden. But brokenness is much greater than, and in longer duration than, the matters that take up so much of our time these days. There is an unfairness to the whole thing and an unwillingness to face the reality in the face: namely, that the Episcopal Church has indeed a spiritual thirst, one met in change that has not been easy either for its friends worldwide or for itself. But we drink from deep wells.

The wish that the Episcopal Church, by way of the General Convention, will repent is being received very poorly, and unless some new language is put forward, resolutions calling for repentance will be defeated on the floor, if not before in committee. The repentance card has been overplayed. In a deeper sense, however, most people here acknowledge that repentance is a core Christian behavior. But there remains the question, repentance for what? And if there is other language that can be used, what is it?

Around the whole of the Windsor Report materials, there seems to be a sense of exhaustion – that we have about talked out all the options, opinions, theologies, ect, and that we need to do what we can to perfect or dismiss the various resolutions, vote them up or down, and simply get on with being the church we are.

The stirrings around are that there is a strongly felt desire to continue as part of the Anglican Communion but that it is not the only reality to be dealt with. In the end the bishops and deputies are called to vote on the matters at hand and the rest of the Anglican Communion will do as they will...

J.

Michael Hopkins: "We Will Not Be Silenced."

From Michael Hopkins' sermon, offered at the Integrity Volunteer Orientation and Eucharist Saturday night in Columbus:

...We need to be crystal clear: we desire to be part of this Communion. Most lgbt Episcopalians are Episcopalians because there is such a thing as the Anglican tradition and the Communion which continues it. We are willing to be in continued, hard conversation. We do not wish to impose our will on anyone. But we will not be silenced. And we promise that we will disobey any legislation that attempts to do so and encourage our allies to do so as well.

Some will hear that statement as a radical call to defiance of the rest of the Communion, or even the majority here at Convention. Perhaps it is. But what it is first and foremost saying is that any resolution that comes out of this Convention that does not include our voices is an illegitimate resolution. It is deeply, deeply troubling that there is not a single out lgbt person on the Special Committee that will consider Communion-related legislation. I pray the chairs understand that this reality puts everything they do into question unless they are experienced as being widely consultative in the next few days.

There are ways forward, but they are not ways that silence anyone—conservative or progressive or anything in between. If this Church has a death wish, it will seek in the next two weeks to silence someone, which means it will seek to silence the Holy Spirit. We will not participate in that silencing, pure and simple; we will resist it in the name of Jesus who taught us to speak of what we know and testify to what we have seen.

My sisters and brothers, you work this week in a long tradition of those who speak what they know and testify to what they have seen of the work of God, the companionship of Jesus, and the revelation of the Holy Spirit among lgbt Christians and Episcopalians and Anglicans. Speak the truth. Do not disdain those who will not hear it. Love this Church and testify to your presence in it that must be accounted for. I cannot tell you how it will all turn out. I do not know. But I do know this: come what may, on June 23 I will be speaking about what I know and testifying to what I see just as clearly and consistently as I am now. I trust you will be as well. No one can silence us, as no one can silence the wind that blows where it wills.

J.

The Latest From the Audacious Dean of Trinity

Paul Zahl, the Dean of Trinity School for Ministry, Ambridge, who recently likened the election of a gay bishop to a terrorist bomb and compared those with whom he disagrees to steamrolling brownshirts now has the audacity to lecture us on the ethics of blogging:

The ethics of blogging need to be addressed.

A couple of serious, bad things are happening:

First, character assassination has become routine on blog sites, both liberal and conservative. People are saying and implying things, without substantiation or information, about personalities, and this comes under an old category: libel. The English newspapers were the ‘90s equivalent of today’s blog threads, and a number of successful prosecutions for libel made them more hesitant to make personal attacks on the front page. Those papers are still up to it, but they check their stories now.

A lot of what we are reading on the blog threads comes under the heading of libel. This needs to change. I believe we all know that...

Hmmm...do I hear a veiled threat?

libel:
A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation.

The act of presenting such material to the public.

The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.

The problem, Dean Zahl, is the accusations against you are not false. And, in regards to character assasination, it appears you don't need anyone else's help to shoot yourself in the foot.

Dean Zahl made some unfortunate statements that appeared on the net. When he was informed of the inappropriateness of his images, he did not offer any apology. Consequently, his poor choice of words continue to be challenged.

The veiled threat of libel sounds like an attempt to take the heat off of his own personal errors. Couching it in an “ethical” argument does not alter the fact that Dean Zahl has recently added much fuel to the fire.

If he wants his ethical argument to be taken seriously, I think he needs to begin by cleaning up his own house.

J.

Thoughts from the Bishop of New Hampshire

Kim Lawton, managing editor of Religion and Ethics Newsweekly, recently interviewed Bishop Gene Robinson. Here's few of the bishop's comments that I found worth noting...

Regarding attempts to appease the critics of the Episcopal Church:

Q: What do you think the strongest critics are looking for?

A: Only the critics can tell us what will satisfy them. And, you know, I think what's being decided here -- this is what I think is the most crucial thing for us right now -- is not whether or not we come to some kind of common agreement on homosexuality. We're going to be trying to understand that and work our way through that issue for many years to come. I won't live to see the end of it. I mean, after all, we dealt with race relations in the '60s; we still have plenty of racism around. We dealt with antiwomen sentiment at the ordination of women; there's still a lot of sexism around. So I don't expect to see the end of this. The question before the Episcopal Church and before the Anglican Communion is, can we stay at the table, the Lord's table, while we fight about this? You know, one of the great gifts that the Anglican Church has to offer the world is that it has been our tradition for 400 years to be able to gather around the Lord's table, to take the body and blood of Christ as humbly and thoughtfully and prayerfully as we could, and then we go back to the pews and fight about all kinds of things. And what I fear is being asked of us right now is that grounds are being laid for saying, well, if you don't agree with us about this, then we can't share that table. And I think that breaks God's heart, and I think it's against 400 years of the Anglican Church's tradition...

Regarding his struggle with alcoholism:

Q: Earlier this year, you did go into rehab for alcohol addiction. How are you doing now?

A: I'm doing great now. I just celebrated four months of sobriety this week. It's been a total blessing. I can't tell you how wonderful it feels and what I've learned and how my own faith in God has deepened. And, you know, there's something I didn't expect that has come out of this. Going to 12-step meetings has been a great experience. I always knew I would do it because it's -- I was told that it was really important. But I never expected to be so inspired by it. And you know, there are very few places in this culture where you can walk into a room where there are street people and CEOs and teachers and physicians and construction workers and shopkeepers all in the same room, all talking about real things, talking about their real lives and what's going on. You know, the 12-step programs are really about living your life. Only the first step refers to alcohol. All of the rest are about living a life. And what I've discovered is that there is a whole lot more church going on in those 12-step meetings in church basements sometimes than going on upstairs in the sanctuary...

I'm glad to hear that the bishop is getting the help he needs. For those who have shared his experience, you know the truth of his last sentence. Beyond that, all I'm willing to say is, "Hi, Gene!"

Regarding Bp. Robinson's hopes for General Convention:

Q: So what are you looking for, hoping and praying for overall, coming out of this General Convention?

A: Well, the thing I most look forward to at General Convention is probably the thing that everyone looks forward to, which is it is a big family reunion. I and every one else will be seeing people that they have known in other churches, in other dioceses, back in seminary. It's a real celebration of the bond that we have in Christ in this little Episcopal Church of ours. And it will be a chance to share stories about how we are trying to make the gospel come alive. We have a hurting world out there [that] is hungry for meaning, and hungry for meaning-making, and that's what God longs to do for us, is to make meaning out of all of this. So it's a real gathering and mutual support of all those people who have that as a goal. And that's what we'll actually be doing through our legislation, through our various gatherings, and through our worship service -- to celebrate that common goal that we have to be God's loving arms in the world.

..."to be God's loving arms in the world." That's a good summation of our vocation as Christians, it seems to me. Too bad we humans, with our big brains, and no sabertooth tigers left to outwit, have made it so complicated.

J.

The Real Issue

From Bp. Stacey Sauls:

...The constitutional issue we face is between two competing visions of what it means to be an Anglican. One vision has its roots in the English Reformation, particularly something known as the Elizabethan Settlement with its key principles of (1) common prayer as the broadly inclusive framework of unity holding together a diversity of doctrinal belief on even fundamental issues and (2) local leadership of the local church. This vision of Anglicanism seems to me particularly well-suited for a world endangered by rising and intolerant fundamentalism, coping with globalization, and struggling with an ever-increasing rate of significant change and its resultant discomfort.

The alternative vision sees our roots in the English Reformation as fatally flawed. Dean Paul Zahl of the Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry states, “This whole crisis has revealed a very serious deficiency in the character of Anglicanism. It’s a severe deficiency in Anglicanism because there isn’t really a church teaching in the same way there is in the Church of Rome…. I would say there is a constitutional weakness, which this crisis has revealed, which may in fact prove to be the death of the Anglican project—the death, at least in formal terms, of Anglican Christianity. We’ve always said that we’ve had this great insight, and I used to think that we did” (New Yorker, p. 63).

There you have it. The first vision of Anglicanism sees our character as having continuing validity and perhaps being uniquely suited for our times. The second sees our character as severely deficient and constitutionally weak. How the two can coexist with so fundamental a difference is not clear. The difficulty is this. The second vision intends to replace the first, not coexist with it (New Yorker, p. 65). At the same time, if the first does not make room for the second to be heard, the traditional Anglican approach of comprehensiveness will be no less endangered. Anglicanism cannot be legitimately defended by stifling dissent any more than the American constitutional principle of freedom of speech can. It is quite possible that the traditional Anglican approach to spirituality, theology, and seeking God’s truth may well vanish from the earth. If we Episcopalians allow that to happen, what I always believed was our most important characteristic will have become our tragic flaw...

I think the Bishop is on to something here. The real issue is this question; is our Anglican comprehensiveness a blessing or a bane?

Beyond that discussion, it seems to me that there is another point worth noting here. How do we plan to make room for those with whom we disagree? There are a number of conservative clergy with whom I work with on various projects on a regular basis. We work together quite well, with the understanding that there are certain topics that we cannot discuss. I certainly want there to be a place for them in the Episcopal Church. It seems to me that some of them feel they are being pushed out. How can we assure them of a safe place within the Church?

Bp. Sauls continues by emphasizing the damage done to comprhensiveness when we marginalize the minority position, and then identifies the new factor introduced in our current unpleasantness:

...Before we are too quick to point fingers, let me say that our intolerance for discomfort has led us to weaken Anglican comprehensiveness on the basis of positions I agree with as much as on the basis of positions I disagree with. Discomfort is an equal opportunity malady. Anglican comprehensiveness has also been challenged by the marginalization of those who oppose the ordination of women. Once one theological minority is relegated to the margins, it becomes perfectly acceptable to relegate others there, too. In the same way, once a break in communion is tolerated for one doctrinal controversy, it becomes perfectly acceptable to resolve others the same way.

The limits of Anglican comprehensiveness have been challenged before. It is being challenged now. What has not been challenged until now is the principle of local leadership. Episcopalians at least have not purported to decide the question of women’s ordination or homosexuality for anyone but themselves. The same is not true with respect to archbishops of other provinces who have attempted to impose their absolute and unquestioning understanding of God’s truth on us (New Yorker, p. 63-64).

Not to mention foreign bishops having no ethical qualms about scooping up Episcopal parishes that are at odds with their bishop. Such chaos cannot continue.

Regarding the Windsor Report:

...The Episcopal Church will consider the Windsor Report and respond to its requests at the General Convention next month. It is too early to predict what that response will be, but the initial proposals are to agree not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same sex relationships and to leave the issue of future bishops to our constitutional processes as The Episcopal Church with the request that all involved exercise extreme caution and care for the positions of our Anglican partners. I, for one, can live with those proposals even though there are aspects of them I don’t particularly like, and it is my hope that the final response will not vary too much from what is proposed. I do not expect the Anglican Provinces of Nigeria, Uganda, or the Southern Cone to heed the requests of the Windsor Report about interfering in The Episcopal Church. The wrongs of others, however, are not a good reason for us to fail to do the right thing ourselves.

So what is the Windsor Report that we are responding to in light of what is really at stake? To the extent the Windsor Report is a voice in the conversation, it is helpful, because it raises some valid questions about how the identity of the family of churches we call the Anglican Communion is continuing to emerge in its characteristically untidy way. To the extent it is an ultimatum, a threat, or a laying down of the law by some siblings to others, though, it represents one vision of Anglicanism supplanting the other and abandoning the Elizabethan Settlement altogether...

If the WR is the beginning of a conversation, it may be helpful. If it is the final word, Anglican comprehensiveness will cease to exist.

So, what should we do?

...Those who prefer the older vision of Anglicanism, in order to be true to our own values, must make room for the alternative vision to have a place, to be a part of the conversation. That is so because it is true to our heritage and constitutional nature even though the newer vision now asserting itself would not make room for the coexistence of the original one. We must not marginalize anyone on the basis of a legitimate disagreement, even those who would marginalize us. That may indeed be our fatal flaw, and time will soon tell.

What I believe is that preserving the traditional Anglican theological process of seeking truth in common prayer will still serve us well if we let it. What I believe is that the traditional vision will be able to make room for the alternative vision without succumbing to it. The best protection against error, after all, is the free exchange of ideas. In fact, in a world facing the discomforting challenges that ours is, particularly the rapidity of change, I believe the traditional Anglican approach is the world’s best religious hope and perhaps the only one that will be able to carry the Christian faith far into a new millennium. But whether it will survive the General Convention of 2006 and the Lambeth Conference of 2008 is very much in question. That, though, and certainly not sex, is what is really at stake.

Let me repeat one statement..."We must not marginalize anyone on the basis of a legitimate disagreement, even those who would marginalize us. That may indeed be our fatal flaw, and time will soon tell." I tend to agree. And I recognize that my intemperate remarks sometimes contribute to the marginalization of some.

As we move towards General Convention, let's attempt to be doubly careful about what we say, and especially be on guard against personal attacks. Because, after all, when General Convention and Lambeth are over, if we are right, God reigns. And, if we are wrong, God reigns. Let's keep things in perspective.

One final statement to highlight; "I believe the traditional Anglican approach is the world’s best religious hope and perhaps the only one that will be able to carry the Christian faith far into a new millennium." This is the primary reason that I am an Anglican, or at least why I remained one after I realized what a harlot the Church can be. Maybe it's just false pride, but after some years of exploring other traditions, I'm convinced that Anglicanism is the best hope for the future of Christendom.

Tangent alert...we commemorated Columba of Iona today (transferred). In preparing for the celebration, I came across a rather interesting tidbit about Iona that I'd never noticed before. After the Council of Whitby, when the Church in England agreed that they were under the authority of Rome (by bending to Rome's date for Easter and type on tonsure; thus setting the precedent for Roman authority over all things), there was a group that disagreed with this position. They removed themselves to Iona.

Anyone know of an island available on which those who dissent from possible future councils in the next few years might retire?

J.

Some General Convention Resources

Here's just a few places that I'm bookmarking:

The Episcopal Church's GC page.

The "Come and Grow Video", which is provided as an orientation for bishops and deputies.

The Blue Book (which is green this time...go figure).

Proposed Legislation. Note that all resolutions are listed. Change the "legislative source" to view those proposed by bishops, dioceses, provinces and deputies.

The legislative process.

GC Schedule.

Louie Crew's GC Page.

Integrity tracks resolutions.

Myths and Facts of GC.

The Windsor Report.

To Set Our Hope on Christ.

One Baptism, One Hope in God's Call.

From The Witness; A Response to the WR.

From The Witness; The Anglican Communion

What Should GC2006 Do?

Saving Anglicanism.

Presiding Bishop Nominees Video

Louie Crew Interviews Nominees

Episcopal News Service.

Anglicans Online News Center.

A few blogs to watch during GC:

Daily Episcopalian, which is run by Jim Naughton of the Diocese of Washington. Jim is an experienced reporter and an excellent writer. I anticipate this will be a good place to pick up on daily developments. Right, Jim?

Preludium, by Mark Harris, a deputy to Convention, member of the Special Commission, and regular contributer to The Witness, among other things. Expect some thoughtful commentary from Mark.

In a Godward Direction offered by Tobias Haller, also a deputy and quite the theologian.

An Inch at a Time, from Susan Russell, President of Integrity USA.

Grace Notes, by Sarah Dylan Breuer, author of Dylan's Lectionary Blog, editor of The Witness and member of the Special Commission. Dylan will be helping with a booth for The Consultation, "a coalition of progressive organizations in the Episcopal Church." This is new to me. I look forward to learning more about it.

mrussellgc06, a new blog by Michael Russell, a priest from the diocese of San Diego, who many of you will recognize from the HoB/HoD list.

Thinking Anglicans, which I assume everyone visits regularly. I consider it the best resource for Anglican news in the blogosphere.

I'll be posting from Columbus, probably at the end of each day, so check Jake's place as well.

From the conservative perspective;

CaNNet's GenCon06 Blog. The content in the body may not be too appealing, but the links on the left provide us with some good resources, especially the "Live Blogger II" category.

titusonenine. Kendall Harmon offers lots of news, often with a conservative slant, but is worth watching as he has good sources and is sometimes the first to post on items of interest. My advice is to avoid the comments, however.

Ok, what did I miss? Let's expand this resource list.

J.

UPDATE: Tom has pointed us to another blog to watch...
The Oasis California News Blog.

Remember Those Who Hunger

From Second Harvest's Hunger Study:

WHO RECEIVES EMERGENCY FOOD ASSISTANCE?

A2H Network agencies serve a broad cross-section of households in America. Estimates of key characteristics include:

• 36.4% of the members of households served by the A2H National Network are children under 18 years old (Table 5.3.2).
• 8% of the members of households are children age 0 to 5 years (Table 5.3.2).
• 10% of the members of households are elderly (Table 5.3.2).
• About 40% of clients are non-Hispanic white; 38% are non-Hispanic black, and the rest are from other racial groups. 17% are Hispanic (Table 5.6.1).
• 36% of households include at least one employed adult (Table 5.7.1).
• 68% have incomes below the official federal poverty level (Table 5.8.2.1) during the previous month.
• 12% are homeless (Table 5.9.1.1).

MANY A2H CLIENTS ARE FOOD INSECURE OR ARE EXPERIENCING HUNGER

• Among all client households served by emergency food programs of the A2H National Network, 70% are estimated to be food insecure, according to the U.S. government’s official food security scale. This includes client households who are food insecure without hunger and those who are food insecure with hunger (Table 6.1.1).
• 33% of the clients are experiencing hunger (Table 6.1.1).
• Among households with children, 73% are food insecure and 31% are experiencing hunger (Table 6.1.1).

MANY CLIENTS REPORT HAVING TO CHOOSE BETWEEN FOOD AND OTHER NECESSITIES

• 42% of clients served by the A2H National Network report having to choose between paying for food and paying for utilities or heating fuel (Table 6.5.1).
• 35% had to choose between paying for food and paying their rent or mortgage (Table 6.5.1).
• 32% had to choose between paying for food and paying for medicine or medical care (Table 6.5.1).

Drawing from what I have said in previous years, I want to repeat a few thoughts to the Christians who might be reading this regarding our motivation for ending hunger.

There is a tendency among programs reaching out to the poor to separate the "worthy" and "unworthy" poor. The worthy are those who appear to have the best chance of becoming a success story. The unworthy are those who seem to be beyond hope; addicts, mentally ill, etc. We have a bias for the poor, not because they are worthy or unworthy, but because they are deserving of the dignity and respect of a creation of God. We do not feed the hungry because they are worthy, but because they are human, and thus children of God.

We do not feed the hungry because we are good people. When Christians get into the front trenches of the struggle against hunger, they find lots of other people already there. Some will be there because of a need to be the "good guys," to assure themselves that they are good people. These are wonderful folks, willingly working hard on many a project, but too much patting oneself on the back can develop a community spirit of elitism.

We do not feed the hungry because we believe we can make this a better world. In the front trenches we will also find lots of social workers, who will be some of the most committed and experienced members of the community. Their goal is to make this a better world for everyone. This is a commendable goal, yet not the primary one for Christians.

We feed the hungry because Jesus told us to do so. Yes, we want to do good deeds. But the goodness of the deed is not enough. Our compassion is a sign of an even greater goodness.

We feed the hungry, not simply because we are good, but to point toward food for the soul; the goodness of God. We feed the hungry, not simply to make this a better world, but to point the way to the compassion of God, which embraces us all. The unique element we bring to the struggle against hunger is the person of Jesus Christ. Our motivation can come closest to being altruistic, as it is not drawn from our need to prove we are good, or save our species, but from our desire to glorify God. The good deed and good stewardship of creation are fringe benefits springing from our desire to reveal Christ to the world. What better way to reveal Christ than to follow his example?

Sometimes, simple is best. Jesus cared for the hungry. Christians care for the hungry.

"I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me." Then the righteous will answer him, "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."
- Matthew 25:35-40

Don't forget to visit The Hunger Site.


J.

Prayer and Fasting

The Octave of Prayer for General Convention will be held from Pentecost, June 4th, through Trinity Sunday, July 11th. From The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold, Presiding Bishop and Primate of the Episcopal Church:

...There is a long tradition in the church of celebrating octaves: that is the full eight days following major feasts. This year the Octave of Pentecost, which is the eight days between the Feast of Pentecost and Trinity Sunday, is a period immediately preceding the General Convention. This, therefore, is a particularly appropriate time for Episcopalians to pray for the 75th General Convention.

Supported by the prayer of the whole church, it is my hope that Deputies and Bishops gathered together in Columbus will make decisions that reflect the mind and heart of Christ who through the cross has drawn all to himself in the fullness of his reconciling love.

From today's meditation, Grow in Hope, offered by the Very Rev'd Kevin Martin, Dean of the Cathedral of St. Matthew in the Diocese of Dallas:

...Often these days, it seems that a grim resignation has settled upon our church, especially our leaders. They seem to have accepted that the present problems, discord, and even polarization will continue. Many have resigned themselves to the idea that divisions must increase, and that the decline of our church is written in the destiny of others of the “mainline.” Has our hope been taken away?

Growth in hope is possible not because we wear rose-tinted glasses. Hope is not merely optimism. Growth in hope is possible because when all else fails us, like the poor, it becomes all that we have. Yet, as long as we have it, we have all that it promises. Give to your church in these days, O Lord, growth in hope.

The Society of St. Francis will be offering a Witness of Prayer and Fasting at General Convention:

We write to you as fellow Franciscans to let you know that a number of Anglican Franciscans will be at the General Convention of the Episcopal Church in Columbus, Ohio, June 13-21, 2006, as part of a Franciscan Witness of Prayer and Fasting for the mission of the Church. Our witness is inspired by a letter from the international leadership of the three Franciscan Orders to Archbishop Rowan Williams, and all other Primates of Anglican Churches throughout the world, from their meeting at Canterbury in August 2005.

We will not be involved in any lobbying or political partisanship around the issues that presently divide the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, but focused on the life of Gospel discipleship, the fruits of the Spirit manifested in the sacrificial love of Christ, and the works of mercy (Matthew 25) by which we will be judged. We believe that a clear vision of the Reign of God proclaimed by Jesus, for which he was willing to die, will enable our Churches to deal openly and honestly with important differences among us and still stay focused on the mission to which we are called.

Some of us will choose to be in prayer at the place in the Convention hall set aside for that purpose; others will make a more public witness at places where Bishops and Deputies come and go about their business. All of our witness will be conducted in a spirit of non-violence and humility...

Let us pray.

God our Wisdom, who eternally makes all things new:
encourage by your Holy Spirit those who prepare for General Convention
to labor together for the building up of your world and your Church;
counsel them when to act and when to wait;
turn their hearts always toward those in greatest need,
and away from their own preoccupations and fears;
help them never forget that love and mercy are your greatest gifts
given us all to offer one another
as we see in them Jesus Christ who alone
is our joy, our way, our truth, and our life.

Amen.

J.

What Will We Sacrifice for Unity?

Tobias Haller, vicar of Saint James Episcopal Church Fordham, Bronx, has an essay in the June issue of Episcopal Life entitled Take Comprehensive View:

...What if we removed ecclesiastical divorce from the table, even as an option? What if we were to agree on one thing: that we have to stay together even if we disagree about other things? What kind of accommodations might we work out?

I’ve heard of plenty of marriages on the rocks, where the couple decides to stay together for the sake of the children. They may discover, even with separate bedrooms and vacations, that after the children grow up and leave home, they have more in common than they thought they did in the time of tension. Can we agree to stay together for the mission of the church, even if we have to juggle with its polity to do so?

Rodney King asked, “Can’t we all get along?” and the same question is facing the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. I pose this question in light of what I see as the church’s mission, the church’s mandate to show the world what it is by what it does.

If the church cannot get along in spite of differences of opinion, how can we witness to a world that does no better? If we cannot even coexist with each other — let alone embody the exemplary love that Christ said would be the hallmark of our identity — of what use are we to the world or to ourselves?

Tobias expands on this theme on his blog:

...To put it bluntly, I am willing to stay on the back of the Anglican Bus. I am willing to accept the reality that my ministrations as a priest would not be acceptable in parts of the Anglican Communion, even in some parts of the Episcopal Church. But as long as I get where I need to go, the back of the bus works for me; for I trust that the day will come when those in the front will be willing to say, at last, "Come up higher." I am willing to "take the lowest seat."

The problem at present is that I get the feeling that some in the front of the bus don't want me on the bus at all. They'd rather I walk. What I ask of them is a willingness to let me stay on the bus. I am not asking them to leave; I am only asking them to let me stay. Because I believe the bus is going where we all want to go...

Thomas Bushnell has responded to Tobias' thoughts:

...Jesus was content on the back of the bus. he was interested in the other people on the back with him, and also with those on the front, those the bus was running down, and those running behind the bus trying to catch up.

Tobias tells me, not that i should be content with being on the back of the bus, but that, if this is my place, it is a place to be. it is, like every other place, a place where Jesus is. it is a place where i am enfolded in love, where i am on the bus (after all) and a place where i am truly what i am.

it is unfair to shove me to the back of the bus. but the first criterion of the Gospel is honesty. so to the folks in the front of the bus: what you are doing is unjust. and, to my fellow passengers in the back, we have lives, we have loves, we have what we have, which is the love of God and is pretty good. here, on the back of our bus, we can make our way...

I appreciate Tobias' grace-filled words, but I must admit that they cause me some degree of discomfort. Tobias suggests this is a kind of "comprehension," not "compromise." I don't think that's how it will play in Peoria.

Our witness to the radically inclusive love of God made known to us through Jesus Christ will be deeply damaged if we state to the world that it is acceptable to force one segment of humanity to the back of the bus. I simply don't think such a statement is an option, even if we have brave souls willing to make that sacrifice for the sake of unity.

Beyond that, I think it should be clear to most Episcopalians by now that the AAC/Network/IRD/Akinola folks are not going to accept ANYTHING that comes out of General Convention. I see no reason to make new victims based on a false hope of some kind of reconciliation being reached.

I am deeply moved by such sacrifices being offered. Maybe this is the best way forward, regardless of the response of those who are demanding the front seats. But it feels terribly wrong.

J.

Saving Anglicanism

Dr. Lionel Deimel, who last week provided us with some excellent commentary on the Special Commission's resolutions, has now produced a background document entitled Saving Anglicanism: An Historical Perspective on Decisions Facing the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church.

Lionel offers a good summary of what led up to the situation the Episcopal Church finds itself in as we head into General Convention this month. At the conclusion of his summary, he also makes an important point that is worth repeating:

...Passing the 11 resolutions or a set a resolutions not too different from them may buy more time, but one has to question the purpose in so doing. Unless the Anglican Communion gets off its current path, its character will be destroyed and the theological essence of Anglicanism, the comprehension of Richard Hooker, will be extinguished. Our object, then, despite what the militant traditionalists tell us, must first be to save Anglicanism, not to save the Anglican Communion, which we cannot allow to become an object of idolatrous veneration...

...We should consider making a more principled, straightforward, and courageous response...In simple, clear sentences we could express our sorrow for the hurt that others have experienced and express our sincere desire to remain in communion with all our sister provinces. We could remind others of Bishop Desmond Tutu’s explanation for how we have always maintained communion—“we meet”—and insist that removing the Episcopal Church or its representatives from Communion discussion is hardly characteristic of the Anglican way. Before the Communion creates more rules, we could insist that existing ones be observed. Before we cede authority to others, we could insist that those to whom we have ceded no authority refrain from intimidation. And we could declare that that name-calling, misrepresentation, and subversion are unbecoming a Christian and unacceptable in a bishop.

We could, in other words, insist that we have as much right to make claims on the Communion as it does on the Episcopal Church. Most importantly, however, we could declare our commitment to save Anglicanism at all costs and to save the Anglican Communion if at all possible.

J.