Jim Naughton Goes to Capitol Hill

I would hope that all of you are familiar with Jim Naughton's report entitled "Following the Money," in which he documents the emergence of the strange cast of donors and activists that now make up the Anglican right. If you are not familiar with this report, please stop now and take a few minutes to read it.

One of the key players in this report is the Institute on Religion and Democracy, an extreme right organization whose history reveals a very dark past:

...During the 1980s, you'll recall, the United States did not regard all terrorists as "evil-doers." Some, like the contras of Nicaragua, we regarded as "freedom fighters." In support of such freedom fighters, IRD staffer Diane Knippers set her sights on CEPAD, a relief and development agency coordinated by the evangelical churches of Nicaragua...

...CEPAD ran a network of medical clinics for the poor, as well as a successful literacy campaign. That literacy work had won the admiration and support of Nicaragua's president, Daniel Ortega, and his Sandinista regime.

Ortega's praise of CEPAD gave Knippers what she saw as an opening. The evangelical churches were not supporters of the Sandinistas, but Knippers portrayed CEPAD -- and therefore the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society -- as "guilty" by association. She wrote of CEPAD as a communist front, part of a supposed Soviet beachhead in Nicaragua.

No one in this country paid much attention, but the contras did. CEPAD's clinics became targets for their paramilitary terrorists. Knippers had placed evangelical missionaries -- doctors and nurses -- and the poor people they served in the crosshairs of terrorists...

When the IRD ran out of Communists, they placed the mainline Protestant churches in their crosshairs. They launched the American Anglican Council, which in turn created the Network, an extremist group that has attempted to keep one foot within the Episcopal church while also keeping one foot headed out the door.

The Lead tells us that James Tonkowich, president of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, recently visited Capitol Hill to testify on climate change. Here is part of the exchange between Tonkowich and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse:

...Senator Whitehouse: Okay.

Now that my colleague has raised the question of funding, I am interested, Dr. Tonkowich, in IRD and where its funding comes from. According to a web site called Media Transparency, IRD received 89 percent of its support in its first two years from six conservative foundations. In an article entitled Follow the Money, which appeared in the Washington Window, Howard F. Amundsen, Jr., alone gave IRD $528,000 in 1991 and 1992, $460,000 in 2001, $150,000 in 2002 to 2003. My question is, are these figures accurate and what percentage of your total funding do those contributions represent?

Rev. Tonkowich: I do not know whether they are accurate or not. I can find out and get back to you. I have been with the organization just over a year. I don't know what the funding was in 1991.

Senator Whitehouse: You say you represent constituents of so- called mainline Protestant churches who feel mis-represented by their denominational Washington offices and by groups like the National Council of Churches. How many constituents is that, approximately? Do you have a number?

Rev. Tonkowich: Our mailing list is somewhere in the neighborhood of 600,000 to 700,000.

Senator Whitehouse: And how do people get on your mailing list? I get stuff that I don't want all the time, and I don't consider myself to be a constituent of the groups that mail to me.

Rev. Tonkowich: Again, people send us their church directories at times, and ask to add their friends to the list. We do very little prospecting. So it is people who have opted on...

So, the IRD is collecting church directories? And they count all of those unsolicited names as supporters? A rather unethical practice, it seems to me.

That may explain the book the IRD recently sent me; someone must have handed over to them the clergy directory for my diocese. I placed it in the circular file, of course. I thought about burning it, but that would be to adopt the tactics of the self- appointed Inquisitors among the right. In hindsight, I suppose I should have put it in the recycle bin, where it could have been redeemed and resurrected into a new creation that focuses on the glory of God rather than the depravity of man.

Jim's work is beginning to get the recognition that it deserves. "Following the Money" is a valuable resource. Make sure you pass it on to those who may benefit from its insights.

J.

Nigerians Don't Fall for Akinola's Tricks

On June 10, Nigeria's Daily Sun ran this story:

...Love of power, it appears, is today threatening the brotherhood of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) following alleged attempts by the out-going National President, Right Reverend Peter Jasper Akinola, to "manipulate the electoral process"...

...the contest has turned into a battle of will as the incumbent, Right Reverend Peter Jasper Akinola, allegedly changed the date of election to favour his candidacy.
The election of the National President of CAN is supposed to end with the ratification of one of the two candidates by the National Assembly of CAN after NEC must have voted in favour of the candidate.

The election of the two candidates who made the list of the Electoral College by the NEC of CAN was to take place on the 6th of July.

But Right Reverend Akinola, who is one of the two contestants and primate of the Anglican Church, is said to have rescheduled the election of CAN President back from the original 6th of July to the 19th of June when Onaiyekan is already scheduled to be in Rome attending a conference of World Catholic Bishops...

One wonders why a supposed rising star like Akinola would have to result to such tricks to win an election. Possibly he is not as popular among those in his own nation; those who have been watching him up close for many years, as his supporters try to make him appear? According to this article, that is apparently the case:

...Sources at the PFN Secretariat in Abuja told Sunday Sun. that the grounds may be shifting under Akinola’s feet as he may be forced to opt out of the race due to stiff opposition to his candidacy by majority of the members.

Signs that more CAN members are uncomfortable with his tenure became clearer two weeks ago during the primaries. According to top CAN insiders, Akinola’s problem have been compounded by his penchant for keeping quiet and not criticizing former President Obasanjo’s government while “it assailed the citizenry with shoddy handling of the economy"...

Of course he's not going to criticize the former President. He owes him at least one favor that we know of. The former President pushed forward Akinola's scheme to silence Changing Attitude Nigeria by proposing legislation to jail all gays and their supporters. This does cause one to wonder what the Archbishop offered in payment for this favor. His silence, perhaps?

It gets worse. Even after manipulating things to make sure his opponent was out of the country, it appears Akinola could not rally sufficient supporters to run his campaign. His creative solution was to recruit his own bishops as campaign workers, since they all owed him a favor:

...Last week, the CAN President and Primate of the Anglican Church reportedly called a meeting of all Anglican Bishops in Abeokuta and reportedly asked the Bishops to recruit campaigners for the task of ensuring victory for the Anglican Church at the poll...

Beyond all of that, it appears Akinola failed to recognize that Nigerians no longer find his "big man" style of leadership acceptable:

...But opposition against Akinola’s candidacy is also waxing stronger with his critics citing several of his alleged misdeeds as reasons for their opposition.

For instance, one of the critics said, “throughout the period Akinola was in the saddle as President, in most meetings, there were no deliberations”, adding “Leaders will now complain about how they came from a distance without being given opportunity of airing their views."

“Again, the fire directorate of CAN did not function well throughout Akinola’s tenure. He was running a one-man leadership and treats his secretary as if the man is an errand boy"...

The election was held on June 19. Here is a report of the results:

CATHOLIC Archbishop of Abuja, Rt Rev John Onayeikan has been elected president of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN).

In a keenly contested election in Abuja yesterday, Onayeikan polled 72 votes to defeat the incumbent and Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) Most Rev. Peter Akinola who scored 33 votes...

It is anticipated that Peter will not be gracious in defeat:

...According to the association's constitution Onayeikan, who won majority of votes of the NEC, shall be deemed nominated as president while Akinola the runner-up is vice-president (VP), nominee.

However, sources at the NEC said: "Akinola is not likely to accept the position of VP. It may be a bit condescending for him. I will be surprised if he accepts that position when the general assembly meets on July 6"...

I suppose one must have some sympathy for the Archbishop. Most likely his success in manipulating a room of Primates in Tanzania gave him a false sense of confidence that he would be successful using similar tactics in the CAN election. Unfortunately, his countrymen appear to be wise to his tricks. Maybe he should have flown in Martyn Minns to give him instructions from the next room?

J.

Washington Post Gets the Facts Wrong

EpiScope points us to this piece from the Washington Post. The following statement is made:

...So far, the heads, or primates, of Anglican provinces overseas have taken under their wings 200 to 250 of the more than 7,000 congregations in the Episcopal Church, the U.S. branch of Anglicanism. Among their gains are some large and wealthy congregations -- including several in Northern Virginia -- that bring international prestige and a steady stream of donations...

As Jan Nunley notes, most likely this number of 250 congregations comes from a recent statement from Abp. Akinola of Nigeria:

...It should be noted that there are now more than 250 congregations in North America related to Global South provinces through a growing number of missionary and pastoral initiatives...

That is quite different from 250 congregations leaving the Episcopal Church, it seems to me. Here's how this error is explained by Jan:

...The misleading part is that uninformed readers naturally assume--from what's implied in Cooperman's lead--that "congregations" in these cases means "full duly constituted congregations of TEC, with their physical plants": in other words, just like St. Swithin's-in-the-Swamp down the street.

And that's just not the case. They're either splits off existing TEC congregations (which continue as TEC congregations), or new church plants, or "house churches" meeting in homes or hotels under lay leadership, or--in a great many cases--"continuing Anglican" congregations long outside Canterbury's official fold and seeking a way back in...

There's another curious bit in the WaPo article regarding AMiA congregations:

It has grown at the rate of one church every three weeks and now numbers about 120 congregations, with five bishops...

So, established seven years ago, AMiA has added a new church every three weeks? 7x52=364. 364/3=121.33. For this to be true, AMiA must have started out with just one congregation. But, as Jan points out, that seems not to be the case:

...the majority of those churches were factions of TEC congregations, new plants or "house churches" founded in the first year or so of AMiA's existence...

Someone's using creative math, again.

So where did Abp. Akinola get that 250 number? Once again, EpiScope points us to one possible source:

The Anglican Province of Kenya has appointed its own bishop to oversee about 30 churches in the United States...

...The churches, together with 37 belonging to the Nigerian-affiliated Convocation of Anglicans in America and 116 under the Rwanda-connected Anglican Mission in America, constitute at least 183 houses of worship under African leadership. Several Ugandan bishops also oversee former Episcopal churches...

There may be "200 to 250" congregations aligned with a foreign bishop in the US. But most of these are part of the "continuing" churches, new churches, or house churches. There are about 45 congregations, less than 1%, that have claimed to have left the Episcopal Church. Almost all of these congregation have been reconstituted by a group from within the congregation that remains faithful to the Episcopal Church.

When you hear such creative math being stated as fact, please correct such erroneous statements. And reporters, please take a little more care in checking out your sources.

J.

El Camino Real Elects Bishop

The Venerable Mary Gray-Reeves is elected on the second ballot.

After serving for ten years in parochial ministry, Mary Gray-Reeves has been the Archdeacon for Deployment of Southeast Florida since 2005.

From Bishop-elect Gray-Reeves' remarks:

...It is often said that the church must change in order to keep up, or catch up, as the case may be. I believe that the church must embrace a lifestyle of change. Jesus modeled agility and sensitivity in his life with the Spirit and the community around him. We must discover ways of being that allow us to be more responsive and flexible as we hold fast to the essentials of our faith. We are called to live daily in the Grace that is gifted to us through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, empowered by the Spirit “which blows where it chooses” (John 3:8). We must respond to the Spirit’s movement just as Jesus did in his earthly ministry, so that the fruit of transformation may be made known. Lives, whole communities, depend on it. I believe that Anglicanism continues to offer a rich heritage in its expression of the Christian faith, blessing us with great opportunities for exploration within the bounds of our common life...

I served for many years in ECR. They live in the shadow of two very large dioceses; California to the North and Los Angleles to the South. Their two previous bishops left under less than ideal circumstances. It is a difficult time to be a Bishop, but it will be especially challenging in this diocese.

My congratulations (and condolences!) to the Bishop-elect. May we hold her up in our prayers.

J.

UPDATE: Episcopal Life is now offering more information on this election.

The True Gospel of Relative Inclusion...Shriek!

From Padre Mickey:

...AMiA and CANA have their own missionary bishops, the bishop of Bolivia and the bishop of Argentina have been sweeping up parishes in the U.S. and Brasil, and now ACK (!) wants to get in on the act. Well, we of The Real Live Orthodox Episcopal Anglican Protestant Catholic Pentecostal Evangelical Fundamentalist Christian Church of All the Americas and Actually the Entire Globe; Yeah, that's Right, We Include the Global South, the Global North AND the Global Center, So Where Else Ya Gonna Go? also known as the RLOEAPCPEFCCAAAEGYRWIGSGNAGCSWEYGG or The True, Really, I Mean It, Church™ are not going to miss out on establishing our own franchise! We have heard the cries of the faithful throughout the world, begging us to come and save them from perhaps having to meet someone with a different theological understanding or with icky personal practices, and we can not remain deaf to their pleas! Our Primados (Photo 1), His Most Shriekiness, the Rt. Rev. Gallito Mescalito, and His Holiness, the Rt. Rev. Red Mr. Peanut Bank, Bishop of All Legumes and Vegetables, in their infinite wisdom, have realized that there is money to be made that the faithful need protecting, and they have elected (the vote for each new bishop was two for, none against) and consecrated seven new bishops to bring the True Gospel of Relative Inclusion™ to those languishing in well-off parishes with great endowments amongst the apostates and heretics of most of the World Wide Anglican Communion...

World Stoppers may recognize His Most Shriekiness, the Rt. Rev. Gallito Mescalito. Most brujos familiar with a separate reality know that an effective way of stopping the world is to repeat the incantation made infamous by Bishop Mescalito;

SHRIEK!

J.

From the Center and the Right

From Nicholas Knisely, speaking from the Center, over on the Daily Episcopalian:

...I have also noticed that the African Primates seem to be more than a little impatient with their American allies. They have been made promises that whatever money they turned down for relief and development from the American church would be replaced by gifts by those separating from the Episcopal Church. This has not happened. In addition it appears that the American folks are looking for a solution that is Canterbury centered, and that is becoming less a concern for the sub-saharan African Primates. The tone of the last couple of CAPA conferences has been that African Anglicans should work together to find an African based solution to the present crisis. Perhaps that is what is happening? And perhaps Jonathan Petre wasn’t so far off base in his reporting?

In other words, we could be seeing the first signs of a totally sub-saharan African based response to the present stresses in the Anglican Communion. It appears now that this group of Primates is working to have the broadly based invitations to the North American bishops withdrawn. And if the Archbishop of Canterbury won’t do that, then they are willing to walk on their own away from an England-dominated Communion.

What new implications would a strong and coordinated, completely non-western based strategy bring? Philip Jenkins talks about the rise of African Christianity and how it is fast becoming the leading voice of a global Church. Could we be seeing a thread of this tapestry in these very events?...

Speaking from the Right, Dan Martins:

...There seems to be an inexorable drive to circumvent the organic processes of the Anglican Communion, regulated--albeit informally and, one could say, haphazardly--by the Instruments of Unity, and confect a solution to our conflicts that the "instruments"--most palpably the Archbishop of Canterbury--will be asked to simply accept. Or not, as it may be. In which case--and here's where I break out into a cold sweat--there will effectively be civil war in the Anglican Communion, a schism that may not have the repercussions of the Great Schism of 1054, but which will be no minor tremor. We will be left with Canterburian and non-Canterburian Anglican churches. Only...will the latter actually be Anglican? Isn't communion with Canterbury of the esse of Anglican identity? Or is it only the bene esse...or, perhaps the plene esse?

Frankly, I find such a spectacle horrific in the extreme. The prospect of choosing between a Canterburian Anglicanism that is "ecclesiologically correct" but otherwise theologically and spiritually vacuous, and a non-Canterburian Anglicanism that is creedally orthodox and spiritually vital, but, lacking an organic continuity with a See that, if not apostolic, is at least ancient, and founded by the bishop of an apostolic See--and therefore essentially just one more Protestant denomination--well...this choice is too terrible to contemplate.

I feel like I have an Anglican soul, but it is a Canterburian Anglican soul. To be bereft of that vital organic link would be to surrender the very core of Anglican identity. I would urge my "reasserter" colleagues to exercise more patience. But I know that too many of them are way beyond the point of listening to such a plea...

We've now heard messages of support for the ACK beachhead from Abps. Orombi of Uganda, Akinola of Nigeria and Venables of the Southern Cone. Each claim ownership of Episcopal congregations in the US. The statements were somewhat similar. I suspect Nick and Dan are correct. We are witnessing the emergence of a new Communion centered in the Global South with no ties to Canterbury.

What are the implications? There are many, but the one that comes to mind immediately is that this new entity would not be "Anglican." It would instead be a new denomination. For this denomination to build a new church down the road from an Episcopal church would not be a case of border crossing or foreign intervention. It would be the same as a Baptist church setting up shop in our neck of the woods.

Other implications?

J.

Executive Council Declares Amendments to Accession Clauses Null and Void

From The Living Church:

"Any amendment to a diocesan constitution that purports in any way to limit or lessen an unqualified accession to the constitution of The Episcopal Church is null and void, and be it further resolved that the amendments passed to the constitutions of the dioceses of Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, Quincy and San Joaquin, which purport to limit or lessen the unqualified accession to the constitution of The Episcopal Church are accordingly null and void and the constitutions of those dioceses shall be as they were as if such amendments had not been passed,” council stated in Resolution NAC-023.

In a statement released today, the Council approved the draft proposed yesterday, which included a rejection of the Pastoral Scheme proposed by the Primates.

A press conference is scheduled for 4:00 pm EST.

J.

UPDATE: Episcopal Life offers us more information on the accession clause resolution:

...Resolution NAC023 names the dioceses of Fort Worth, Pittsburgh, San Joaquin and Quincy.

Some council members argued against naming the dioceses, including Ted Yumoto of San Joaquin, who said the resolution was a "statement of alienation" rather than reconciliation.

Bishop Julio Holguin of the Dominican Republic also urged the Council not to name dioceses but to make the resolution more obviously applicable to all dioceses. He also called on the Council to "soften [the resolution] in favor of dialogue." Bishop David Alvarez of Puerto Rico disagreed, saying that the resolution needed "more teeth."

The Rev. Gay Jennings of Ohio reminded the Council that General Convention had agreed about how to "order our common life" through its Constitution and Canons, and that the specific dioceses' actions have been "injurious to our common life."

Lexington Bishop Stacy Sauls, who helped to draft the resolution, said it was important to name the dioceses, in part because a judge in any future legal action connected with the dioceses' actions might ask why the Church never made a statement against those constitutional changes...

Presiding Bishop Suggests Taking the Long, Calm View"

The Lead points us to a report of Bishop Katharine's visit to Vancouver for the annual meeting of the Anglican Indigenous Network. There's some statements made in this report that are worth repeating, if for no other reason than to help us keep things in perspective:

...In an interview in Vancouver, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America unflinchingly predicts the high decibel back-and-forth currently pre occupying the top level of international church may well go on for another decade or more.

“I think the best outcome would be to ratchet down the level of conflict several notches,” Jefferts Schori said. “We have some very anxious people who need to have this resolved structurally right now.”

Those anxious people, personified by the 38 Anglican primates, have given ECUSA a September 30 deadline to cease-and-desist from same-sex blessings and the consecration of gay bishops. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, will arrive just days before that for the regular fall meeting of ECUSA’s bishops.

“I hope that he can hear and believe the church is far less divided than he believes it is,” said Jefferts Schori...

...The bishop acknowledged the conservatives in her church - those people jarred by 35 years of constant change from the ordination of women through the inclusion of children to revisions in the prayer book - are fuelling the outrage of some outspoken African bishops over the open acceptance of gays and lesbians.

However, Jefferts Schori, who calculates the disgruntled at one half of one per cent of her 2.4 million-member church, calculates the international disgruntlement at a similar level.

“It’s not the whole communion,” she said. “It’s a few people.” At the February primates’ meeting in Dar-Es-Salaam, “there was a handful of primates who were really upset about sexuality issues,” she said, while the bulk of the archbishops were annoyed at seeing their pressing concerns of poverty pushed aside.

And even in places such as Nigeria, where one voice, that of the very vocal Archbishop Peter Akinola, speaks for the church, “there is a diversity of understanding,” Jefferts Schori said...

...For indigenous people, who feel themselves to be a powerless minority often quarreling among themselves, Jefferts Schori recalled members of the Latino community in California letting down their barriers to each other and uniting for the first time, only to discover they were then a large force in the church.

“Together, all the marginalized can change things,” she said. “The secret is those in power are relatively few.”

And to the plea for native priests ordained in and for their own communities, she said, simply: “Continue to challenge your church.”

J.

Executive Council to Consider Response to Communique

Episcopal Life is reporting that a draft statement in response to the Primates' Communique was released today:

...The proposed statement, and three resolutions, suggest a response to portions of the communiqué issued by the Anglican Primates at the end of their February meeting in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. The communiqué contained the Pastoral Scheme and called for the Episcopal Church "to effect a moratorium on the election and consent to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate who is living in a same gender union until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges."

The proposed statement would have the Council acknowledge the communiqué as "a good-faith contribution" to the on-going discussion about Anglican identity and authority but state that the "requests of the Primates are of a nature that can only be responded to by our General Convention." The Convention next meets in the summer of 2009.

The statement would have the Council "question the authority of the Primates to impose deadlines and demands upon any of the churches of the Anglican Communion."

"Assertions of authority met by counter-assertions of polity are not likely to lead to the reconciliation we seek," the draft statement says. "Our salvation is not in the law but in the grace of God in Jesus Christ our Savior; so too with our relationships as Anglicans."

The statement would have the Council say that "the only thing we really have to offer in that relationship is who we are -- a community of committed Christians seeking God's will for our common life."

The draft statement claims unity through baptism, says that "we are, whether we wish it or not, God's gift to each other" and acknowledges that the church has historically struggled to embrace people who have been marginalized, including the current debate over the place and vocation of gay and lesbian people in the life of church.

The task group proposes three resolutions for Council. The first would receive and adopt the statement the group has drafted.

The second, titled "Commending the report of the Communion Sub-Group, " refers to the report of an Anglican Communion group which generally gave the Episcopal Church positive marks for its response to various requests to explain its decisions regarding same-gender blessings, the episcopal ordination of an openly gay and partnered priest, and its desire to remain a part of the Anglican Communion. The resolution would have the Council encourage the House of Bishops to consider the report as it prepares to meet in September.

The third resolution, "Executive Council's response to the House of Bishops' Mind of the House Resolution on the Proposed Pastoral Scheme," refers to the House of Bishops' declaration in March that a plan the Primates put forward for dealing with some disaffected Episcopal Church dioceses "would be injurious to The Episcopal Church." The bishops' resolution urged that the Executive Council decline to participate in it and the proposed statement would in fact have Council decline and "respectfully ask our Presiding Bishop not to take any of the actions asked of her by this scheme"...

No response until GC2009, questioning the authority of the Primates, emphasizing our unity through baptism, and rejecting the pastoral scheme. A good first step, it seems to me.

The Executive Council will discuss this draft tomorrow. If it is adopted with few alternations, let us hope it will provide a blueprint for the House of Bishops to follow in September.

J.

Clarification: Kenya Follows Nigerian Model

The Living Church offers more information regarding the report in the Telegraph of a new breakaway group in North America.

Bill Atwood, who recently left the Episcoapl Church, will be consecrated as bishop by the Anglican Church of Kenya. The pattern follows quite closely that of Nigeria and CANA. The only addition is the claimed consultations with other Primates (who have not come forward yet) and the suggestion of some kind of coalition among these breakaway groups.

The Lead has the letter from the Archbishop of Kenya.

So now Rwanda, Nigeria and Kenya are being allowed to consecrate bishops for North America, to better facilitate their pillaging of parishes. None of the entities will be recognized by Canterbury, of course, but I'm not sure that matters to them anymore. Any means, including invasions, to justify their ends; the expansion of their personal kingdoms, which more and more appear to have nothing to do with Anglicanism.

It appears once again that the Telegraph attempted to make much ado about nothing. Just another Primatial Pirate on the horizon, who has decided this is the time to unfurl his Jolly Roger. He condemns himself by his unethical behavior.

J.

Rumors of Schism

The Lead points us to a news item in the Telegragh:

A powerful coalition of conservative Anglican leaders is preparing to create a parallel Church for conservatives in America in defiance of the Archbishop of Canterbury, provoking the biggest split in Anglican history, The Daily Telegraph has learned.

According to sources, at least six primates are planning the consecration of a prominent American cleric as a bishop to minister to Americans who have rejected their liberal bishops over the issue of homosexuality...

...The initiative is understood to have been co-ordinated by senior African archbishops, including the Primate of Kenya, Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi, who represent the core of the so-called Global South group of conservative primates.

But the group has a wider base and is also thought to include several relatively moderate primates from outside Africa...

...Insiders said the scheme was not being led by the maverick Global South leader, the Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, who has already set up a similar "missionary" Church in America headed by Bishop Martyn Minns...

So much for hopeful optimism.

However, the support of 6 Primates out of 38 is certainly not a "powerful coalition". One can only speculate that the other 32 will not be too pleased by this move. If they get away with it in TEC, they might try it in their Province as well.

The Lead reminds us the Telegraph recently got it wrong. Since the story is not being heard anywhere else, at this point it is simply a rumor.

J.

Some Cautiously Hopeful Signs

Andrew Gerns, writing for the Daily Episcopalian, offers us a "must-read" article entitled Anglican Equilibrium. He ties together the bits and pieces that have been cause for some of us to wonder if we are not witnessing a subtle shift within the Communion. I cannot do justice to the entire article here. There are simply too many points worth pondering. Yet, I do want to highlight a few of them.

It appears that there are two camps emerging among the Anglican extremists:

...It looks for all the world as if the heart of the conservative/reasserter movement is getting ready to leave the Episcopal Church with or without the blessing of the Archbishop of Canterbury. The action could be the creation of an Anglican-heritage coalition in the USA or the precursor of a separate, smaller, Anglican-related gathering of provinces who will stay away from the 2008 Lambeth conference...

...In the meantime, other important leaders of the reasserter movement have urged caution and are making the case for staying within the Episcopal Church.

The Anglican Communion Institute, Inc., cautions conservatives not to act too harshly...

This leads to an analysis of what exactly happened that may have caused this division. Before launching into his analysis, Andrew offer his own note of caution:

... The relationships are so complex and the issues so nuanced that it is hard to pin down one cause, and I do not believe that the Communion is out of the woods on this matter by any stretch. Moderates in search of peace and progressives in hopes of victory, both of whom may be seeing glimmers of some kind of resolution, could still be surprised. This movement still has legs and could coalesce seemingly without notice. Still, I want to highlight some changes to the landscape that suggest that we are on different ground than we were a year or even six months ago...

The changes Andrew mentions might be summarized this way:

1. ...News of the invitations to Lambeth was certainly a shock to the reasserters’ movement. For CANA, AMIA and a similar set-up in Brazil to be ignored deprived these groups of Anglican legitimacy. They have in one stroke been reduced to splinter groups or hangers-on..."

2. ...There is no energy from either Lambeth nor the bulk of the Primates to impose a structure on a member of the communion against its will... The example offered for this lack of will is the statement from the Latin American bishops. As a side note, Padre Mickey gives us some good insight on the impact of this statement.

3. ...Recent court actions may have taken some of the romance out of the movement as well... Examples mentioned are the recent court rulings in Florida and South Carolina.

4. ...improved communications by those who support the actions of our General Convention... With the addition of EpiScope, Episcopal Life Online and the Episcopal Cafe, the Episcopal Church has finally entered into this new world of instantaneous news and commentary made available by the internet.

A personal note on this development. After the Windsor Report came out, it was up to the independent progressive bloggers to provide commentary, news links and "push back," as there was little or no communication from TEC, other than the Episcopal News Service, but much commentary coming from the Network and their allies. That has now changed.

Over the last few weeks, I have started over a dozen news items that were never published. One of the steps before publishing is to make sure that no one else is already providing the information. There's little point in duplicating efforts. Every single news item that I've dug up over the last couple of weeks was already up at The Lead. They've put together a good team over there. They find the news and get it out fast.

This improved communication will result in the independents being liberated from the obligation of being a news resource. We can now feel free to explore other things. I'll be able to offer more book discussions, for instance. And maybe not be so serious all the time. We've been set free to re-create ourselves, again. Thanks be to God!

Back to Andrew's analysis.

5. ...Finally, how long can a movement sing a one-note chant? Since the turn of this century, these groups have coalesced around human sexuality, particularly the blessing of same-sex relationships and the consecration of Gene Robinson. But how long will these groups be able to put aside their own theological diversity in the name of anger over a bishop? The divisions among the Anglican extremists are huge. They cannot be ignored for much longer.

Andrew's closing paragraph is worth noting:

...The movement has, at least for this moment, run out of steam because of the hard lessons of communion over many centuries. Either we choose to come together in the name of Jesus Christ, or we choose to stay apart. What we are learning is that not only is Communion a gift from God, it is an act of the will. Whether these groups stay at the table or leave will depend on each one's tolerance for ambiguity as we all try to live the Gospel together in a complex world.

We have good reasons to be cautiously optimistic. It's not over yet, but there are signs that the predictions of doom and gloom may be overly pessimistic.

J.

God Places Ad in British Paper

From Ekklesia:

In a move which may surprise media commentators and distinguished theologians alike, God – known primarily for moving in mysterious ways – has bought a full page advertisement in The Independent newspaper to persuade erstwhile admirer President George W. Bush to take climate change more seriously.

The advert appeared on page 39 of the UK daily’s print edition dated 4 June 2007...

Here's the ad:


The website hosting this ad offers a German version, as well as this suggestion:

You too can correspond directly with George.
Join me in asking him to lead the World in sorting out Climate Change.

Email him on: comments@whitehouse.gov

Or write to him at:

Mr George Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

At the G8 Summit in Germany, it appears President Bush initially ignored this divine revelation, but later agreed to at least “consider seriously” a European plan to combat global warming.

The President was feeling a bit ill during one day of the Summit. It's not nice to fool with Mother Nature, Mr. President.

Ekklesia offers these concluding thoughts:

...Some secularist groups are said to be infuriated by the advertisement. They are seeing it as "a deliberate conspiracy by well-funded spiritual forces to subvert the democratic process of largely non-religious corporate interests running the entire world out of existence."

But it seems that God has canny advisers. The Almighty has chosen to speak through a paper with definitely secular leanings and a very humble circulation – in keeping with previous low-key manifestations in stables and elsewhere. Also there is no divine declaration of affiliation to any one creed.

The Church of England is likely to welcome the divine choice of a broadsheet, and above all English, newspaper, and will offer God membership in the Anglican Communion provided that it can be proved that all members of the Holy Trinity are in full accord with the last Lambeth Conference resolution on sexuality.

There is some Establishment disquiet behind the scenes that God chose not to use either The Times or The Church Times for the dramatic message to President Bush. And the appearance of a German translation may lead to textual disputes and a possible global schism among all religions.

God was not available for further comment.

J.

Second Sunday after Pentecost

The following is part of last Sunday's sermon. Since it is somewhat derived from one of our previous discussions, I thought some of you might find it of interest.

Soon after healing the centurion's slave, Jesus went to a town called Nain, and his disciples and a large crowd went with him. As he approached the gate of the town, a man who had died was being carried out. He was his mother's only son, and she was a widow; and with her was a large crowd from the town. When the Lord saw her, he had compassion for her and said to her, "Do not weep." Then he came forward and touched the bier, and the bearers stood still. And he said, "Young man, I say to you, rise!" The dead man sat up and began to speak, and Jesus gave him to his mother. Fear seized all of them; and they glorified God, saying, "A great prophet has risen among us!" and "God has looked favorably on his people!" This word about him spread throughout Judea and all the surrounding country.
(Luke 7:11-17)

This morning we encounter two processions. One is going into the town of Nain and the other is coming out. Nain is a town in the South of Galilee, a short distance from Jesus’ hometown of Nazareth.

At the head of the procession going into Nain is Jesus. The procession coming out is led by a coffin. What will happen when these two processions cross paths at the town gate? Which one will give way?

Jesus sees the grieving mother. What does He do? How does He respond? His heart went out to her. He feels compassion for her. He chose to share in her sorrow.

Moved by compassion, Jesus acts. "Young man, I say to you, get up!" he shouts. And the dead man sat up and began to talk. The compassion of Jesus led to something amazing happening, something unexpected. Death was trampleddownby the Lord of Life.

This is our Christian hope. Through Jesus Christ, death, our ancient enemy, has been cast down and trampled underfoot. Death has been swallowed up in victory. We no longer have to live in fear of death.

But, sometimes, we do anyway, don’t we? It's difficult not to fear death. I’m not just talking about physical death. We die many little deaths throughout our lives. Many of the changes we face feel much like a little death. We grieve the loss of the familiar. We long to relive days from our past.

But the reality is that if we are to continue to grow, we must accept these little deaths. We must allow ourselves to be transformed into the full stature of Christ. And for that to happen, we have to let go of some of the baggage that we are dragging around with us; those old grudges, those past regrets, and those character flaws. There are aspects of ourselves that we have to allow to die.

In our Epistle lesson, Paul speaks about his earlier life in Judaism; about how he was violently persecuting the church of God and was trying to destroy it. You may recall when St. Stephen was stoned to death, it was Saul, who later became Paul, who held the coats of the stone hurling crowd. When Paul encountered Christ on the road to Damascus, he was transformed. But that transformation required a little death as well; the zealous persecutor of the Church had to die.

Congregations have to pass through these little deaths as well, if they are to be transformed and follow the call of God. I was an interim priest for a few years. I would be assigned to serve in a congregation while they made their transition from one spiritual leader to another. Sometimes their former priest was the beloved rector. Sometimes he or she was not so beloved. Regardless of the case, there was always some element of a grieving process going on in that congregation. Interims were expected to allow that process to happen, and attend to any pastoral needs that might result from it. It was only when the congregation faced that that particular chapter in their life was now over that they could begin to dream about the future. There had to be a little death before there could be room for new life.

Sometimes, we fear these little deaths so much, that we are a bit too cautious. We hesitate to do anything new or risky. What if we fail? What if there isn’t enough? What if we make a mistake? We stick to the familiar, to the comfortable, because we are afraid of dying.

Barbara Brown Taylor, an author and an Episcopal priest, recently wrote a thoughtful article in the Christian Century entitled, “The Poured-Out Church”. I want to share part of it with you:

…when I consider my life of faith, this world is clearly where my transformation has taken place. It is in the world that I have met the people who have changed me—some of them believers, but far more of them not—people who have loved me, fought me, shamed me, forgiven me, sanding down my edges on one side while they broke whole ragged chunks of me off the other. The world is where I have been struck dumb by beauty, by cruelty, by human invention and greed. The world is where my notions of God have been destroyed, reformed, chastened, redeemed. The world is where I have occasionally been good for something and where I have done irreparable harm.

The reason I know this, however, is that the church has given me the eyes with which I see, as well as the words with which I speak. The church has given me a community in which to figure out what has happened to me in the world. It has given me a place to love and grieve, within a tradition far older and wiser than I. It is the church that has poured me into the world, in other words—which is counterintuitive. How can a church survive that keeps pouring itself into the world? I cannot possibly say. All I know is the gospel truth: those willing to give everything away are the ones with anything worth keeping; those willing to look death full in the face are the ones with the most abundant lives. Go figure...

“…those willing to look death full in the face are the ones with the most abundant lives.” Can we look death full in the face? Are we willing to pour ourselves into the world? Will we risk much for the sake of the Gospel?

We can. And we will. Because we are Christians. Because we do not live in fear of death. Because we are those who proclaim the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

I’m not suggesting we be foolish. There’s a difference between being bold and risking much and being foolish. We are certainly called to be good stewards of the gifts God has given us.

But we must always remember that our mission field is out there in the world. And to be effective witnesses for God, we must pour ourselves into the world, even if it seems risky; even if it seems deadly.

How do we know where to pour ourselves out? In this morning’s Gospel, when those two processions met, one led by life, and one led by death, it was at the moment that Jesus was filled with compassion for the widow that everything was transformed. Life overcame death. Mourning was transformed into laughter and joy. This transformation began with compassion; with Jesus opening his heart to the grief of the mother. Where do we begin to pour ourselves out? In those places where people are hurting; in those places where we find ourselves moved to open our hearts and reveal the compassion of Christ.

Let us always remember that we do not exist for the sake of the Church. We exist for the sake of the world. We are called to pour ourselves out, driven by compassion for those who are hurting in this world. If that means we have to look death full in the face, so be it. Cannot God raise up something new from the ashes of our vanquished dreams?

Let us not live in fear of death, or the little deaths that each of us will face as we walk together with Christ in our midst. Let us be willing to risk much for the sake of the world, and proclaim with our every word and deed the healing power of God’s love.

J.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori: Our Voice to the World

On Thursday, Bishop Katharine testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Here's part of it:

...I believe that each of us must recall ourselves to the vision that God has for us to realize in our own day. It is a vision in which all human beings live together as siblings, at peace with one another and with God, and in right relationship with all of the rest of creation. While many of the faith communities represented here today may disagree on a variety of issues, in the area of global warming we are increasingly of one mind. The crisis of climate change presents an unprecedented challenge to the goodness, interconnectedness, and sanctity of the world God created and loves. This challenge is what has called our faith communities to come here today and stand on the side of scientific truth. As a priest, trained as a scientist, I take as a sacred obligation the faith community's responsibility to stand on the side of truth, the truth of science as well as the truth of God's unquenchable love for the world and all its inhabitants.

The Church's history, of course, gives us examples of moments when Christians saw threat, rather than revelation and truth, in science. The trial and imprisonment of Galileo Galilei for challenging the theory of a geocentric universe is a famous example of the Church's moral failure. For his advocacy of this unfolding revelation through science, Galileo spent the remainder of his life under house arrest. The God whose revelation to us is continual and ongoing also entrusts us with continual and ongoing discovery of the universe he has made.

As one who has been formed both through a deep faith and as a scientist I believe science has revealed to us without equivocation that climate change and global warming are real, and caused in significant part by human activities. They are a threat not only to God's good creation but to all of humanity. This acknowledgment of global warming, and the Church's commitment to ameliorating it, is a part of the ongoing discovery of God's revelation to humanity and a call to a fuller understanding of the scriptural imperative of loving our neighbor...

Yesterday, our Presiding Bishop was interviewed on Bill Moyer's Journal. We heard some of the same themes that were presented to the Senate. From the transcript:

...Christians talk about the body of Christ. A theologian named Sally McFague talks about the body of God as being all of creation. When one part of the body suffers, the whole body suffers. That's an essential piece of Paul's theology. If we're not caring adequately for the other parts of the body, we are not only destroying ourselves, but we're destroying our neighbors here and across the world...

...Religion and science are both ways of knowing, but they go at it from somewhat different perspectives. Science asks questions about-- how things happen and where they've come from. Religion and faith traditions ask questions of meaning, about why we're here and what we should do with what we have here, and how we should relate to the rest of creation...

...Religion is at its best, I think, an invitation into relationship. It's not necessarily a set of instructions for how you deal with every challenging person you run across in the world. It has that at its depth, but it-- does not give one permission to say, "This person is out, and this one's okay and acceptable." And I-- it continually invites us into a larger understanding of that relationship...

There's much more. Take a look.

J.

May Bishops Stephen Jecko and Frederick Putnam Rest in Peace

From Episcopal Life:

Bishop Stephen Hays Jecko, 67, and Bishop Frederick Warren Putnam, 89, both died on June 7.

Jecko was the retired bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Florida and had been serving the Episcopal Diocese of Dallas as an assisting bishop.

Funeral arrangements for Jecko are pending in Dallas, Texas, where he was acting as assisting bishop of the diocese.

Putnam was the retired Bishop Suffragan of Oklahoma and the retired Bishop of Navajoland. Putnam, who was ordained in the Episcopal Diocese of Minnesota, had been an assisting bishop to both Robert Anderson and James Jelinek, the seventh and eighth bishops of Minnesota.

A memorial service for Putnam, who died ten days before his 90th birthday, is set for 11 a.m. June 12 at St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Edina, Minnesota...

Rest eternal grant to them, O Lord:
And let light perpetual shine upon them.

May their souls, and the souls of all the departed,
through the mercy of God, rest in peace. Amen.

J.

Time Interviews Dr. Williams

The complete interview can be found here. Regarding the exclusion of some bishops from Lambeth, Dr. Williams offered this response:

...Of course, exclusion is not particularly a Gospel idea. The election and ordination of Gene Robinson was an event which many in the Communion had warned would deepen our divisions. Similarly, with Martyn Minns, there had been warnings that [his missionary assignment in the U.S.] looked like a kind of aggression against another Anglican province. I felt we would run the risk of their attendance becoming the subject matter of the conference...

Since, as Dr. Williams noted, exclusion is contrary to the message of the Gospel, it would seem worth the risk to be true to our principles.

On Bp. Robinson:

Regarding Robinson, one thing I've tried to make clear is that my worry about his election was that the Episcopal Church hadn't made a general principled decision about the blessing of same-sex unions or the ordination of people in public same-sex partnerships. I would think it better had the church actually taken a view on that before moving to the individual case. As it is, someone living in a relationship not theologically officially approved by the church is elected to a bishop — I find that bizarre and puzzling...

It would have made things much clearer for everyone if General Convention would have made a definitive decision on same sex blessings before the election of Bishop Robinson. As to the relationship being "officially approved by the church," I have to wonder in what way he is using the term "church." If we are speaking of the Anglican Communion, what body decides what is "officially approved" for all Anglicans? Clearly there are quite a few issues, such as divorce, women's ordination, polygamy, the use of various versions of the BCP, transfer of clergy, lay ministers and other church customaries, on which the Communion holds a diversity of views on what is "officially approved."

When Gene and Mark's relationship was blessed by the Church, the "local option" was "officially approved" by General Convention. Each diocese decides how best to serve the pastoral needs of their members, which may include a rite of blessing. My understanding is that the blessing of their relationship was done within the context of a Blessing of a Home.

The problem now is that if the Episcopal Church gives in to the pressure from some parts of the Communion to no longer "officially approve" such blessings, what will be the status of those, like Gene and Mark, whose relationships have already been blessed? Once the Church offers God's blessing, can it be revoked at some later date? If so, I can think of a few battleships and fox hounds whose deeds I certainly question, and would like to see the Church's blessing rescinded.

Returning to the interview, here's Dr. Williams' thoughts on the reaction of TEC to the latest Primates' Communique:

...It was seen as interference and colonialism. I was a bit taken aback because I didn't see it as the primates trying to dictate terms, but to say, look, here is a scheme which we think you could work with. But I've occasionally thought — rather mischievously — that the issue could be described [to the Americans] in terms of a good American slogan: No taxation without representation. That is, in some parts of the world, the decisions of the Episcopal Church are [incorrectly] taken to be decisions that the local Anglican Church owns and agrees to, and the local church can suffer in reputation or worse because of that...

It is fairly well established that the Communique is considered "dictating terms," at least from the perspective of the two or three Primates who insisted that the sections which place demands on TEC be included. I don't get the "no taxation without representation" in this context. Would someone please explain it to me? I have certainly thought of that line in regards to Lambeth; if all our Dioceses are not represented, then we should not be expected to pay the bulk of the bill for the event. But yoking it to the Communique is beyond my comprehension.

The final three question and responses are brief enough to quote in full:

...When you return from study leave, you'll focus once more on the problems within Anglicanism. Some people have already decided to stay away from the Lambeth Conference and possibly begin a process of division.
I don't particularly want to be — I wouldn't say blackmailed but pressured by either extreme on this. I think they'd lose by not coming. I think they need to talk to each other and listen to each other without prejudice.

Are you optimistic?
I'm hopeful. Not optimistic.

"Hopeful" is a safer word?
It's a safer word.

From this interview, Time pieced together a lengthier commentary, in which much background information is provided. Here is how Dr. Williams' position is summarized:

...So although he says he's "not recanting" his old arguments about homosexuality, his new job demands that he express "where the consensus of our Church is," rather than press for change. Even though Williams himself doesn't see sexuality as of "first-order" theological importance, he believes so many Christians do that pro-gay measures must be preceded by a broad shift in consensus. He portrays the U.S. church as having failed at this — and Robinson's election as perhaps dangerously myopic. Williams reports complaints from Egyptian Christians that their churches are being denounced — or, he hints, threatened — by Muslim clergy because of same-sex relationships, even though the local Christians themselves have never accepted their validity. Williams would like to see a "covenant" or set of core Anglican principles. U.S. Episcopalians have criticized this as a move aimed at forcing liberal churches into Roman-style lockstep, and he acknowledged it could eventually isolate the American church's current stance on homosexuality. "I don't want to accelerate departure, God forbid," he says, adding that he hopes both the Episcopalians and others could benefit if their positions changed.

The Archbishop is weary of being pushed around. The pusher-in-chief, of course, especially since the founding of cana, has been Akinola. "I've said to him privately and publicly I don't think that [cana] was an appropriate response," says Williams. He is also bothered by the unwavering support by Akinola's church of a proposed Nigerian law, now lapsed, that would have assigned a five-year jail term not only to open homosexuals, but to those who supported them. Williams says he is "very unhappy" about the situation, "and I've written to the Archbishop about it"...

This will probably be the last word from Canterbury until September. Read all of it, and then point out additional items that jumped out at you.

J.

Poured Into the World

From Barbara Brown Taylor:

...And yet when I consider my life of faith, this world is clearly where my transformation has taken place. It is in the world that I have met the people who have changed me—some of them believers, but far more of them not—people who have loved me, fought me, shamed me, forgiven me, sanding down my edges on one side while they broke whole ragged chunks of me off the other. The world is where I have been struck dumb by beauty, by cruelty, by human invention and greed. The world is where my notions of God have been destroyed, reformed, chastened, redeemed. The world is where I have occasionally been good for something and where I have done irreparable harm.

The reason I know this, however, is that the church has given me the eyes with which I see, as well as the words with which I speak. The church has given me a community in which to figure out what has happened to me in the world. It has given me a place to love and grieve, within a tradition far older and wiser than I. It is the church that has poured me into the world, in other words—which is counterintuitive. How can a church survive that keeps pouring itself into the world? I cannot possibly say. All I know is the gospel truth: those willing to give everything away are the ones with anything worth keeping; those willing to look death full in the face are the ones with the most abundant lives. Go figure...

It seems to me that one of the difficulties in our current discussions regarding the Church, and specifically the Anglican Communion, is our hesitancy to fully pour ourselves into the world, because that may just require us to look death full in the face.

We do not exist for the sake of the Church. We exist for the sake of the world. If that means we do not survive, so be it. Our faith is in the living God, not in institutions, after all. Cannot God raise up something new from the ashes of our vanquished dreams?

Make sure you read the entire article. It is quite good. I also highly recommend Barbara Brown Taylor's most recent book: Leaving Church: A Memoir of Faith.

Thanks for the pointer, Ann.

J.

Fort Worth Bears False Witness

Lisa points us to this interesting commentary by Bishop Jack Iker of Fort Worth regarding the recent House of Bishops meeting. Here's the opening lines:

A palpable sense of apprehension was in the air as the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church gathered at Camp Allen in Texas on 16 March 2007, for their five-day spring meeting. Everyone was in a dither about the recently issued Communique from the Dar es Salaam meeting of the Primates of the Anglican Communion, calling for an 'unequivocal' response from the American bishops to the Windsor Report requests for a moratorium on the blessing of same-sex unions and the consecration of any bishop living in a same-sex partnership. The bishops have to give an answer by 30 September 2007...

This sound to me like a first-hand report. The problem is, Bishop Iker was not at this meeting. He chose to boycott it to avoid being contaminated by all those heretics he knew would be there. Yet, nowhere in this commentary does he mention that fact.

Once we know that his knowledge of the meeting is second-hand at best, it is not surprising that he gets almost all the facts wrong. Consider his description of how the statement from the bishops rejecting the pastoral scheme came about:

...In the days leading up to the meeting, all the bishops had been peppered by emails and letters from the lesbi-gay lobby group to 'just say no!' to this interference in our internal affairs. The Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, preparing to preside at her first meeting of the HOB, wrote to all the bishops to assure them that no decisions were to be made on the Communique at this meeting and to publicize that fact to others. This was to be a time for gracious conversation and careful listening to one another. Decisions were to be put off until the September meeting of the House in order to comply with the Primates' deadline.

However, the liberals were not buying that approach and were determined to take a stand now, perhaps not on the issue of the requested moratoria, which could wait until September, but certainly on the proposed Pastoral Scheme that would undermine the canonical integrity of TEC. A small group of bishops had been discussing a paper that they would spring on the meeting near its end and had arrived at Camp Allen with draft copies in hand...

Compare this with the account of Bishop Jim Kelsey, a saint of God who moved on to the nearer presence of our Lord just this week. Note that Bishop Kelsey was present for this meeting. We have previously discussed his commentary on the Bishops' meeting. Here is how describes the formation of the bishops' statement:

...I traveled to Texas on Wednesday, March 14. I was arriving two days before the full Bishops' meeting to participate in the regularly scheduled meeting of a group known as Bishops Working for a Just Society. Our coalition of about 50 bishops meets twice a year, facilitated by the Office for Government Relations of The Episcopal Church...

...On Friday, March 16, the full meeting of the bishops got underway. There were about 140 of us present...

...By the time the scheduled meeting was over for the day, and our group of concerned bishops assembled in a designated meeting room, it was clear that our group was not representing a minority position, but was in fact beginning to gather the overall mind of the full Meeting. There were 34 of us present. We went around the room and identified things we had heard in the full Meeting that we had found encouraging, and things we had found discouraging. We zeroed in on the over-riding concern about the so-called "Pastoral Scheme", which so obviously attacked the autonomy of the various Provinces (especially ours), and which clearly had little to no support among the full gathering of Bishops. We discussed the best way to articulate this concern, and many individuals agreed to speak with others not present to build consensus. A drafting committee of five bishops was asked to begin work on a draft statement, which we would review together on Sunday evening, and talk again amongst those gathered to see how things seemed to be progressing...

...By Sunday evening, our group had grown to 46. We spent considerable time reviewing the draft, suggesting changes, and asking the drafting committee to further refine it...

...On Monday evening, following the full bishops' session, our group met again. By now, we had over 80 bishops who had indicated their support for the content of our statement (though the actual text had not been available for people to review, since the drafting committee was still working on it). The group crammed into our meeting room and heard the text of the proposed resolution read. Changes and refinements were proposed...

These two renditions of the same meeting tell very different stories. One claims that a group of bishops arrived with a draft statement already prepared. The other claims that the statement was the result of conversations during the meeting, with the first draft prepared after the meeting had commenced. Since Bishop Kelsey was present for the meeting, and also present for the discussions that led to the statement refuting the pastoral scheme proposed by the Primates, and Bishop Iker was not, I am inclined to believe Bishop Kelsey's recollection of the events.

Since Bishop Iker was not there, yet had access to commentaries such as Bishop Kelsey's, he either chose to hear what he wanted to hear, or is intentionally bearing false witness against his brother and sister bishops. Unless we hear a detraction from Bishop Iker, now that the truth of what happened has been made clear, one must assume that the latter charge is the correct one; the Bishop of Fort Worth is intentionally misrepresenting his role in this meeting, and making false statements about what happened at that meeting, in an attempt to rewrite this latest chapter of the history of the Episcopal Church.

J.

As the Anglican World Turns

It doesn't seem to me that much worth noting has really happened since the announcement of the invitations to Lambeth. However, I recognize that some of you may disagree with that assessment. So here's a few items that you may find of interest.

Regarding the Lambeth invitations, I still hold to the minority opinion that only a boycott of such an exclusionary meeting will provide the appropriate message to the world that TEC will not participate in bigotry. However, there's been some discussion of note regarding that stance, specifically from Marshall Montgomery here and here. I continue to disagree with Marshall's conclusions, but do appreciate his willingness to really struggle with some of the issues involved, and for helping me think through them a little more.

I should also note that in regards to my response to what I perceived as an attack on the progressive position by Father Jones, I was most likely in error to come out with both barrels blazing, especially in light of one of his subsequent commentaries. I still come to the conclusion that Greg Jones' comments regarding the progressive position, and Susan Russell specifically, were inappropriate. But I must apologize for wading into the midst of that one with a bulldozer, when most likely a trowel would have worked just fine.

In other news regarding Lambeth, it appears that Uganda and Nigeria will not be present. No surprise there. Abp. Akinola is basing his decision on the premise "If Martyn doesn't go, nobody goes." Hmmm...that one sounds embarrassingly familiar, doesn't it? Abp. Orombi bases his decision on the Road to Lambeth statement, which Abp. Akinola also mentions, even though the authority of that statement is in question.

The Global Center has issued a statement:

In Panama, the bishops identified themselves as the "Global Center" and called for the Anglican Communion to regain "the participatory and tolerant character that Anglicanism has always offered as the middle way within Christianity"...

...In their recent declaration, the bishops said their concern had grown since the 2005 meeting, "because of the polarization regarding the biblical and theological positions manifested in the Anglican Communion, during the last years; positions known as Global North and Global South, non reconcilable in their character and putting the unity in the Communion at risk."

"In the midst of this painful controversy, we do not identify with either side, because they don't fully represent the spirit of our thoughts," they said. "As disciples of Jesus, called to live out the mandate of love (St. John 15:17), we declare our commitment to be together and with all our strength, struggle for unity, as an act of obedience to His will expressed in the Holy Scriptures"...

As one might expect, Fr. Jones is delighted with this statement. Although I fall short of delight, I find this to be an encouraging development, as it offers an alternative position that will be attractive to many within the Church.

Regarding things Network related, A "Common Cause Council of Bishops" is scheduled for late September. This gathering will bring together bishops from the American Anglican Council, Anglican Coalition in Canada, Anglican Communion Network, Anglican Essentials Canada, Anglican Mission in America, Anglican Network in Canada, Anglican Province of America, Convocation for Anglicans in North America, Forward in Faith North America and Reformed Episcopal Church. These "disaffected, breakaway bishops" are going to have some high hurdles to jump, if their intention is to set themselves up as an alternative Province in North America. Some are within the TEC, others, such as the REC, have been out for some time. Some entities are in communion with Canterbury, some are not. Some allow the ordination of women, others do not. Some insist on the 39 Articles, others consider them problematic. Some insist on the 1662 BCP, others prefer more options. Pulling this diverse group together will be a challenge that I'm not convinced can possibly be accomplished. If some form of unity is found, there is still the problem of Canterbury, who will most likely not recognize the group, as it contains too many elements that are not in Communion based on previous judgments by Canterbury.

Speaking of previous judgments by Canterbury, Lord Carey of Clifton has chosen to chime in on the question of the current Archbishop of Canterbury deciding that the AMiA bishops would not be invited to Lambeth, based on the previous decision of George Carey. It seems to me that former Archbishops are at their best when they learn to go fishing, write their memoirs, or anything other than constantly judging the decisions of the current Archbishop.

The House of Bishops have offered a study document to assit them in their response to the Primates' Communique:

...Theology Committee chair and Alabama Bishop Henry Parsley told Episcopal News Service that the report is meant for bishops to use in conversation with the people of their dioceses in the three and a half months between now and the mid-September meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans. Rather than call for responses from individual Episcopalians, Parsley said the committee will in late August and early September gather input from bishops on the result of their conversations in their dioceses...

Soulforce is calling for the Archbishop of Canterbury to stop segregating Bishop Gene Robinson. Here's the content of the petition:

I ____________ cannot accept that the way for faith leaders in the Anglican Communion to deal with the tension resulting from an oppressed group of people's struggle for justice is to exclude rightfully elected bishops who belong to the oppressed group from historic church gatherings.

I call upon the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, to invite V. Gene Robinson, Episcopal bishop of New Hampshire, to the once-a-decade Lambeth Conference in 2008.

You can sign it here.

No doubt there are other items of interest that I have skipped. Please feel free to point us to them in this thread.

J.

Bishop James Kelsey Dies in Auto Accident

From Episcopal Life:

Bishop James Kelsey of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan was killed in a road accident at around 4 p.m. on Sunday, June 3, while returning to Marquette from a parish visitation, Jane Cisluycis, diocesan operations coordinator confirmed.
Kelsey was traveling alone, but it is unclear at this time whether any other vehicles were involved in the incident.

"The Episcopal Church has today lost one of its bright lights," Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori said. "We will be less without the easy grace of Bishop James Kelsey -- Jim to most of us -- and we shall miss his humor, insight, and passion for the ministry of all. He gave us much. We pray for the repose of his soul, and for his family. We pray also for the Diocese of Northern Michigan. All of us have lost a friend. May he rest in peace and rise in glory"...

Less than three weeks ago, Bishop Kelsey was presented with the degree of Doctor of Divinity, Honoris Causa, by Episcopal Divinity School “for his prophetic leadership in supporting the baptismal ministry of all Episcopalians and for the Diocese’s work in helping to transform congregations from being communities gathered around a minister to ministering communities.” From the citation honoring Bishop Kelsey, offered by Dr. Fredrica Harris Thompsett:

Some ministry folk who are truly skilled in collaborative, shared ministry are educated over time into this path. Some are deeply shaped in mutual ministry by those with whom they serve. Some are called out to witness biblically and prophetically, following the Apostle Paul’s missionary methods and appreciation of diverse gifts within each and every community. And some frankly are just born with a taste for companionship. Jim Kelsey, you are a bit of all of these paths to baptismal ministry, and much more.

You not only speak of but you practice ‘shared Episcopacy.’ With consummate hospitality and unfailing good humor you and your diocesan family have shared your experience in ministry with many visitors from the U.S., Canada and overseas. We are proud too that you have persistently stood in genuine friendship with lesbian and gay colleagues, worked energetically for ecological justice in territory where natural gifts have mostly been ‘mined away,’ strategically spoken truth to power in recent Bishops’ meetings, and labored as a small diocese in this large land to advance other paths where justice and mercy meet.

We know that it is antithetical for you to accept any honor including this one standing alone in leadership without collegial brothers and sisters. We know too that the loving spirit of diocesan companions and far-flung friends upholds and travels with you.

From Bishop Kelsey's 2006 Bishop's Address:

...“I have a dream,” God says. “Please help me to realize it.” And the thing about it is this: It’s bigger than me. It’s bigger than you. It’s bigger than us. Bigger than the any of our congregations. Bigger than our diocese. Bigger than the U.P. Bigger than the Episcopal Church church-wide. Bigger than the United States of America. Far bigger than the Anglican Communion world-wide. It’s bigger than our imaginations, and our own self-interests. Far bigger than our own dreams or goals or expectations for ourselves and for one another.

I don’t know about you, but I know that I am one who needs to be drawn out of my own preoccupations and myopic vision. Day to day, I get caught up in my own personal agenda and at times (because of my job) our shared institutionalized agenda of budget meetings and personnel matters and group dynamics; what have you...

And because I am distracted by the many things, I lose sight of the One Thing, the Dream - of God’s Dream for us and for all of Creation. I forget, and I start to think that life is all about me, and I lose my focus on what matters most to me - which really isn’t so much about me, but us and all of Creation. It is what I think Desmond Tutu is calling “God Dream”.

God’s Way of Love in a world in which violence erupts on a daily basis and people and politics and public policy seem shaped more by fear and self-centered arrogance than by a vision of the connectedness which God has made as basic to creation as is the one blood which courses through the veins of all people everywhere...

I am Resurrection and I am Life, says the Lord.
Whoever has faith in me shall have life,
even though he die.
And everyone who has life,
and has committed himself to me in faith,
shall not die for ever.

As for me, I know that my Redeemer lives
and that at the last he will stand upon the earth.
After my awaking, he will raise me up;
and in my body I shall see God.
I myself shall see, and my eyes behold him
who is my friend and not a stranger.

For none of us has life in himself,
and none becomes his own master when he dies.
For if we have life, we are alive in the Lord,
and if we die, we die in the Lord.
So, then, whether we live or die,
we are the Lord’s possession.

Happy from now on
are those who die in the Lord!
So it is, says the Spirit,
for they rest from their labors.

O God, who by the glorious resurrection of your Son Jesus
Christ destroyed death, and brought life and immortality to
light: Grant that your servant James, being raised with him, may
know the strength of his presence, and rejoice in his eternal
glory; who with you and the Holy Spirit lives and reigns, one
God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Almighty God, Father of mercies and giver of comfort: Deal
graciously, we pray, with all who mourn; that, casting all
their care on you, they may know the consolation of your
love; through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

J.

Love Lives in Loving Actions

From Tobias:

...the message of the latter portion of Matthew 25 is that there is no Christ without the values, and no values without the Christ. "As you have done ... you have done to me."

In this parable those who are ushered into paradise do not know that they have encountered Christ in the poor, the hungry, the imprisoned -- any more than those who failed to do so.

Moreover, Christ is here referring to "the nations" and how they treated Christ's "brothers" -- those in whom Christ is present. Thus shall the righteous who do not "know" Christ be saved -- through him -- on the basis of how they treated him. There is no salvation by gnosis; only by praxis -- for it is only in praxis that we know Christ. Love lives in loving actions, or it does not live at all.

Amen.

J.

Sara Miles: "Service is Thanksgiving"

In our discussions of Sara Miles' book, Take This Bread, we have touched on the experience of conversion and the open table invitation offered by St. Gregory of Nyssa in San Francisco.

Those are important discussions. But by themselves, they offer an incomplete picture of Sara's book, as well as a distorted view of the Christian faith. Conversion and communion are the beginning, not the end of the story. We've received God's free gift of grace. But we're conduits, not storehouses. Now that we've been given this amazing gift, what are we going to do with it? How will we allow this same grace to freely flow from us into the world?

Sara heard a call to put the grace she had received into action. Here is how she describes it:

...That picture in the back of my mind was getting clearer. It was communion, after all, but with free groceries instead of bread and wine. With the "everyone" of "Jesus invites everyone to his table" extended, so that more sinners and outcasts could share the feast. With the literal bread of life served from the same table as the bread of heaven. This is it, I thought, what I'm supposed to do: Feed my sheep. I phoned the food bank and, panicking slightly as the words left my mouth, introduced myself in a way I never had before. "I'm Sara Miles, from St. Gregory's Church," I said. "I'd like to talk with someone about starting a food pantry."...
(Take This Bread, pp. 104-105)

And with that, St. Gregory's Food Pantry was born. They now serve over 250 people per week, and have launched numerous new food distribution sites all around San Fransisco.

Listen to how Sara describes the connection between feeding the hungry and the life of the Church:

...The pantry did not become a “service project” of the church. It’s simply church: a liturgy of acts, modeled directly on the liturgy of the Word. It’s as necessary and as intimate as breaking bread together: daily bread, the bread of Heaven, and the bread that we become. We are bringing each other into communion.

There’s a tendency to think of service as something auxiliary to “real” worship–something we do because, being edified and basically nice people, we want to be helpful to others. Or because, in that dreadful, condescending phrase, we feel an obligation to “those less fortunate than ourselves.” We tend to think of service as something a committee does. Something you write a check for. “A good cause.”

But the people who serve at the pantry, like those who serve in our liturgies, know otherwise.

When we sing our prayers together right before the pantry opens, holding hands, I often thank God for letting me feed others, as I have been fed, and for allowing me to give, knowing that at other times I have been, and will be, only able to receive...

...Service is thanksgiving, because it means not only giving freely, but understanding how greatly we’re loved. I remember an afternoon at the food pantry when I was trying to open up, while an impatient throng of people shouted at me and at each other in three languages. I’d been unloading crates of oranges as fast as I could, and bossing the volunteers around, but we were still behind schedule. We were short a crate of snacks, and the two old Cuban sisters who always show up hours early were out front, bickering noisily. Three hyper little kids were pestering me for candy, and the crazy guy with apocalyptic theories kept trying to corner me and explain the secret messages he’d received. Some visiting minister was standing around, but I couldn’t get a minute to talk to him; new volunteers kept asking me what to do, but somehow nothing was getting done. Everything felt hectic and irritating and on the verge of chaos, and my feet hurt. I was sick of poor people, sick of church people, utterly sick of myself.

And then a woman pushed her way to the front of the crowd. She was Chinese, with a quilted jacket, and she was thrusting a package at me. I couldn’t understand what she was trying to say, but she kept smiling and coming closer. “Here,” she said, and handed me a piece of fish wrapped in waxed paper, still warm. “Food, for you”...

Reading this book, with all the stories of those whose lives became meshed with Sara's as a result of this "radical conversion," was a very emotional experience for me. I found myself shouting aloud "Yes!" at some points, and quietly shedding tears at others. Read it. It is an amazing story.

I need to say something personal about hunger. I've said some of this before, but I need to say it again. And again.

As I've mentioned before, I spent a few of my teen years as a homeless boy, usually hiding from the police because I was a run away from various foster homes. During those years, I often went many days without a meal; sometimes without any food at all. If I came across a few pennies, I'd buy hard candy. Sucking on it made the craving for food a little less intense. In season, I'd feast on the wild berries that could be found along the borders of some of the city parks. Sometimes I'd sneak into the dorms of the university, looking for scraps in the dining halls. And sometimes I'd do even more desperate things to feed my craving need.

When this went on for a few months, the lack of nutrition caused unusual physiological changes. I became very weak. I would have to rest more often as I walked. I could no longer do the periodic odd jobs that supplied me with money for food, as I no longer had the strength to control the mower, or lift the sacks of charcoal onto the pallet. I once headed south from San Francisco, hitching rides with no destination in mind. I ended up in San Diego. The police picked me up for being a minor out past curfew. When they found out I was a run away, they sent me to the local juvenile hall. The next morning, I was led outside with the rest of the boys for calesthenics. I couldn't do it. Not even jumping jacks. The other boys got a good laugh out of it, of course. The staff were shocked by my weak attempts to flop my arms and legs. There was no stength left in my muscles. I was slowly starving to death.

There's another attribute of malnutrition that doesn't get mentioned much; the effect it has on the brain. Becoming so physically weak was usually accompanied by very strange thoughts and emotions. Sometimes I'd walk into a room and have to immediately leave because the sudden bombardment of stimuli coming from those who were present was too overwhelming. Paranoia was a constant companion. I would begin to avoid other people, and could often be found walking along the road muttering to myself. The boundaries between imagination and reality would begin to blur.

After about a month of meals every day, these symptoms would disappear. That is why when we offer someone from the streets a hand up, there needs to be at least thirty days given before we place expectations of employment or training on them. They need time to heal from malnutrition before they can function.

One other point: Because I was on the run and hiding from the police, I tried very hard to remain invisible. I never carried a bag or a backpack, and would wash up every morning in a public restroom. What amazed me was that most of those who were on the street with me also took great care to not draw attention to themselves, and made the effort to appear as if they were just like everyone else, even though many of them were not being sought out by the authorities. Why? Because they were ashamed. Because, in the eyes of society, they had not lived up to the expectations of the "American dream." They saw themselves as failures.

There are thousands of the invisible poor in our own backyards. They want to hold on to any scrap of dignity that they have left. We can honor this by freely helping them, with no strings attached. No names. No sign-ins. No records of their visit. If we don't do this, they may not be willing to receive our gift. Guarding our human dignity is a powerful thing.

After all, we're talking about food. Did you know that in the US, 20% of our food ends up in the garbage? There is enough. Why must we place conditions on who receives it? Food can be seen as an sacramental sign of grace; and since freely we have received, so freely we give.

Reach out to those who are slowly starving to death in your own backyard. Reach out to them, not because they are worthy, not because they deserve it, but because they are human; because they are children of the living God. And who knows, if you look deeply into to their eyes, you may just glimpse there the King who said to us, "Just as you have done this for the least of those who are of my family, you have done it for me."

J.