Bp. Howe: "We Wish to be in the Episcopal Church"

There was an interesting meeting last month in the Diocese of Central Florida. As background, you may want to recall our previous discussions of their Bishop, John Howe. I offered a critical review of him, which was followed by a more positive one offered by a personal friend of mine. In January, Bp. Howe spoke out against border crossings. In March, we discussed the Bishop's positive comments about our new Presiding Bishop.

Bp. Howe is unusual among the Network bishops, in that he is not a follower. He is willing to row against the current, if he must. What happened at last month's meeting of the Diocesan Board and Standing Committee of the Diocese of Central Florida provides further evidence of the unique qualities of this bishop. Pat offers us some details, as well as a message from Bp. Howe explaining, from his perspective, what occurred. Here's part of that message:

...At last month's meeting of the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church a motion was presented by Bishop Stacy Sauls of Lexington that passed (with two negative votes), declaring that any legislation by Dioceses of this Church that have amended or withdrawn their "accession clause" to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church is "null and void"...

...One of the members of our Board proposed a resolution to respond to this action. It had three parts:

1) that the Board "declines to accept the limits on our freedom...to qualify or withdraw our accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church in order to maintain our primary allegiance...to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church of Christ."

2) that the Board "does not recognize...any trust between this Diocese and the general Episcopal Church...upon the real or personal property of this Diocese...." and,

3) "that in the event such trust has been...asserted...the Board...hereby specifically revokes any such trust."

Before allowing any discussion of this resolution, I asked our Chancellor, Butch Wooten, to give us his opinion regarding it. He said he believed it reached so far into the doctrinal and spiritual affairs of the Diocese - which according to our Diocesan canons are in the "exclusive charge" of the Bishop - that it could not be considered by the Board. Our Vice Chancellor, Bill Grimm, agreed with this opinion.

I then ruled, as Bishop, not as Chair, that the motion was "out of order."

The President of the Standing Committee, Don Curran, who is a member of the Board, ex officio, immediately moved to "over-rule" my ruling, and he was seconded by several members.

I would not allow the motion to over-rule to be considered.

It was a very difficult meeting for all of us. Several members of the Board and members of the Standing Committee, some of whom were present, believe that as Chair I do not have the authority to prevent the motion to over-rule and that our Chancellors were wrong in their judgment that this motion falls within the arena of the Bishop's "exclusive charge over the spiritual affairs of the Diocese." They have argued this forcefully, and (with only one exception), I believe entirely respectfully...

...To remove our accession to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church would be - in my understanding, that of our Chancellors, and that of the Executive Council - a matter of abandoning one of the requirements for being a Diocese in The Episcopal Church. The fact that other Dioceses have done (or attempted to do) this is irrelevant. (If something is improper, it simply should not be done, no matter how many others have done or tried to do it. And, if the Executive Council says their attempts are "null and void," have they actually done it, or have they not?)...

...The Board cannot act on this matter because we, the Diocese, wish to be a Diocese of and in The Episcopal Church, and those members of the Board who wish no longer to be such are free to leave, but they cannot decide for the rest of us that we are no longer part of The Episcopal Church...

It may be wise for us to keep this incident in mind. We cannot simply put all conservatives in the same box and be done with them. We may disagree on any number of things, but those who express their faithfulness to the Episcopal Church must be granted a place in our common life, if we like it or not.

This insistence on including our conservative brothers and sisters in Christ is not just my personal opinion. The leadership of Integrity share in this commitment. Consider these words from the Rev. Michael Hopkins, Past-president of Integrity:

We are absolutely committed to this Church and we are absolutely committed to the Continuance of as broad a diversity—including theological—as is possible for us to maintain together. This commitment is, in part, a commitment to continued messiness and frustration … Liberals and conservatives, progressives and traditionalists, must learn to live together in this Church or there will be no Church in which for us to live. But learning to live together must mean “mutual deference” not moratoriums or some insistence that we all convert to being “moderates”...

The Rev. Susan Russell, current President of Integrity, also expresses the same commitment:

As we struggle together as members of this beloved church of ours to find our way forward in mission and ministry it seemed a good time -- once again and for the record -- to restate a critical plank of Integrity's "platform" ... a key component of our "agenda." It involves the critical issue of where we stand on diversity of opinion and whether or not we believe there is room in the Episcopal Church for those who disagree with us.

In a word: we do...

...So please -- the next time someone writes or blogs or emails the urban myth that "both sides" are insisting on the expulsion of the other send them this "Message to the Church" -- or have them talk to me. I'll be happy to set the record straight...

Pray for the Diocese of Central Florida. Pray for the Church.

J.

Presiding Bishop Visits Brazil

From Episcopal Life:

Health and strength for the whole body of Christ were a guiding focus throughout July 6-10 meetings in Brazil where Anglican leaders nationwide welcomed Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori of the U.S.-based Episcopal Church...

...Recife's Gameleira spoke of his diocese's increasing health and rebuilding after a series of widely reported schisms in which hundreds of parishioners departed, and the previous bishop, Robinson Cavalcante, was deposed amid conflict over views of theology and human sexuality. The diocese is steadily stabilizing, said Gameleira, and a new cathedral has been consecrated earlier this year in the Espinheiro suburb.

Commenting on church conflicts, Jefferts Schori later told the group assembled July 9 in Porto Alegre that focus on mission keeps dioceses healthy.

"Conflict to the side, that [mission focus] is what will keep us together," she said. "In the Episcopal Church, as in Brazil, the dioceses focused on mission are healthy. They don't fall into consuming conflict."

Jefferts Schori added that the Episcopal Church's 10 overseas dioceses "are clearly focused on mission; they're not concerned with the conflict within the Anglican Communion" as a primary issue.

That afternoon in another session devoted to dialogue with lay and ordained women gathered in Porto Alegre from across Brazil, the Presiding Bishop and other participants reiterated that homophobia and racism are inconsistent with receiving all people into the body of Christ.

The group also discussed ways in which women are engaged in uniting the Anglican Communion through new initiatives, including the Anglican Women's Empowerment organization...

It is refreshing to see us celebrating our common mission with our global partners instead of being so focused on interior maintenance, isn't it?

J.

From Chuck Blanchard: "Next Steps"

In a contribution that should assist in the continuation of our previous discussion, Chuck Blanchard offers The Anglican Communion: Next Steps.

Before I quote Chuck's steps, I want to mention a couple of concerns that I have. Please note that I'm preaching to myself as well right now. I have no problem with the occasional emotional outburst. I'm pleased that folks find this to be a place that is safe enough for such expressions. Also, I do not mind tangential conversations. I think that is how real conversations unfold. Some of our best discussions have had nothing to do with the post. However, I do hope that we can all keep in mind that those reading our words may see our discussions as an example of what it means to be part of a Christian community. An eccentric and sometimes heretical community, of course, but hopefully still one that is rooted in Christ. We are offering a witness to the world.

Now, regarding Chuck's steps; I don't agree with all of them. Some of you will disagree as well. But, we have to start somewhere. Feel free to voice your disagreements, but try to stay focused on the issues. And, even better, if you disagree, offer an alternative idea.

As a refresher, Nicholas Knisely offers a summation of the points made in our previous discussion, which originated from a comment by Mad Priest:

...If I'm reading this right, it would appear that one of the reasons the Episcopal Church should be willing to stay in the Communion rather than just walking away on its own is that by doing what needs to be done to remain, we would be taking on the role of the loyal opposition.

Being loyal opposition is not something that we Americans have managed to do well - witness the behavior of some conservatives within the Episcopal Church or the behavior of the Episcopal Church within the larger Communion - but I take the "MadPriest's" point and offer it as an additional rationale to those who have called to just pull the plug and walk off without delay.

Chuck suggests four steps that would keep us at the table:

So, in light of this responsibility, what should the Episcopal Church do? I offer the following thoughts:

First, another response by the House of Bishops that speaks of polity and the independence of the Episcopal Church will not be helpful. We have made our points about polity and independence. It is time to offer a way ahead to reconciliation within the Communion.

Second, we need to end our obsession with Archbishop Akinola and the most vocal Global South Primates. They are not the audience for our response. I doubt even defrocking of all gay priests would be enough for them. Instead, our audience includes Anglicans across the world who want to preserve the Communion, members of our own Church for whom the issues of the day are of no import, and yes, the Archbishop of Canterbury and the majority of the Primates. This audience will not demand capitulation, but it will expect a respectful (and yes, compromising) response.

Third, we need to stop talking about the issues of same sex unions as if they were political issues that can be decided by majority votes. These are theological issues, that deserve theological attention. Quite frankly, the TEC has moved in a direction without such a formal theological process--at least not one that gets much attention today. The Canadian Church's St. Michael's Report was quite useful. The House of Bishops should start a serious and open theological discussion and study among Episcopalians on all sides of this issue. If we are to move in the direction of recognizing same sex relationships (which I think we should), we need to do some serious theological work--now. And we should invite Anglicans in other provinces to participate.

Fourth, I think the House of Bishops can offer at least something to the Communion in addition to a willingness to engage in a serious and open theological examination of the issues. The House of Bishops can clarify what we all know what was intended by General Convention in 2006--that at least until the next General Convention, a majority of the House of Bishops will not vote to approve a bishop that would cause angst in other provinces. And, I think that the House of Bishops could agree to wait for the next General Convention, and the results of the theological discussions, before proceeding with official rites for same sex blessings.

If we care only for the Episcopal Church, we need not do any of this. If we are about our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters in the rest of the Anglican Communion, we need to take heed of what the Mad Priest has to say.

I agree with steps one and two. I find step three quite frustrating, but understandable. There has been much theological work done. To Set Our Hope on Christ is a serious examination of all the issues. The section that addresses same sex blessings, which begins on page 23, is an excellent summation of how many of us in the Episcopal church view that particular development. But, for some reason, that document, and others, are, for the most part, ignored. So we need more documentation. Fine. We'll develop it.

Step four is going to be where we run into some disagreement. The actions of General Convention 2006 went far beyond what many of us can accept. To go further is asking too much. We cannot continue to ask for a sacrifice from only a segment of our membership.

We have resolution B033 regarding the election of bishops, which some of us, even though we feel it got shoved down our throats and can still taste its bitterness, have accepted as the official statement of TEC. That should be sufficient. Any further clarification would simply be the interpretation of the House of Bishops, and rather than add clarity, will most likely make things even more unclear.

Regarding blessings, we have not authorized rites, and we cannot do so until, at the earliest, General Convention 2009. If stating that fact is what Chuck is suggesting, I'd have no real disagreement with it, as long as bishops are still allowed the freedom to offer pastoral care to all members of their diocese.

Ok, enough from me. Your thoughts?

J.

From the Office of the Inquisition: "You are All Heretics"

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith of the Roman Catholic Church, formerly known as the Holy Office of the Inquisition, has decided it is time to start suppressing doctrinal heresy once again. The particular doctrine they feel the need to defend this time is the idea that they are the only Real Church. Even the Orthodox cannot be part of their club:

... However, since communion with the Catholic Church, the visible head of which is the Bishop of Rome and the Successor of Peter, is not some external complement to a particular Church but rather one of its internal constitutive principles, these venerable Christian communities lack something in their condition as particular churches...

Close, but not quite enough.

The Protestants, however, can just forgetaboutit:

...According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called 'Churches' in the proper sense...

So, why do we need to be reminded of the exclusivity of Rome? According to the statement, it is all being done in the name of ecumenism:

...Apart from dealing with certain unacceptable ideas which have unfortunately spread around the Catholic world, it offers valuable indications for the future of ecumenical dialogue...

Well, the indications are certainly valuable if your intention is to kill any possibility of dialogue.

Nothing really new here, except that this new Pope continues to attempt to undo anything that was accomplished through Vatican II.

So, remember when you enter through those pearly gates and walk past the Roman Catholic mansion to drop your voice to a whisper. It is the polite thing to do. It would be poor form to destroy the illusion that they are the only ones there.

J.

Accepting Responsibility Beyond Our Borders

A couple of items have given me cause to rethink some of my previous positions. The first one is from an interview of Davis Mac-Iyalla by John Johnson. The section that caught my eye was this:

...Q: What do you think is most important for the Gay, Lesbian, Bi and Transgenerdered community here in the United States to know about the lives of gay and lesbian Nigerians?

A: We have no access to information about gays worldwide. Most of the gays and lesbians in Nigeria have no idea about the lives of the GLBT community in the U.S. and no ability to share ideas and information. A gay American is no different than a gay Nigerian. And we need to know more about each other.

Q: How would that communication help gay Nigerians?

A: In many ways…One of the connections I have made with the GLBT community in the U.S. is your vocal efforts to secure your own rights. You have the freedom of speech here and I think you should use it to fight oppression in Nigeria and not just with your members of Congress but your bishops and priests and members [of your churches] too...

Do we have a responsibility to fight oppression in Nigeria? Or to broaden that question; what is our responsibility when it comes to standing against oppression around the world?

I must admit to an inclination at times to see our primary responsibility as ending at the borders of the US. This is partially derived from a dated understanding of global politics. I still consider Teddy Roosevelt's approach as the most effective; no foreign powers in our hemisphere, speak softly but carry a big stick, the golden bridge, etc. The reality is that the world today is quite different from his era. We are more connected globally than ever before in history. What happens across the globe does effect us. And, more to the point, our actions will impact those in Nigeria.

Mad Priest, speaking from an English perspective, makes this point quite clear in a comment he left on Chuck Blanchard's blog. MP reposted his response at OCICBW. I'm also going to repost it, because I think we need to hear it, even if it makes us squirm a bit:

A disciplined TEC will gain more support and the schismatics will lose support because Americans will see any such move as an attack on America and will side with those being attacked. Other than the loss of status abroad and a few freebie trips that TEC's higher officials enjoy at present there will be little noticeable change in the American Church.

As I keep saying. The primary concern of TEC should not be itself, which is strong enough to weather this storm, but their weaker brethren abroad whose forseeable future is very bleak as they will have to make the decision of leaving the church they love, without any other home to go to, or living a lie.

The truth is, although I am 100% behind TEC's recent policies, their unilateralist decisions are not a sacrifice for Americans but a sacrifice for their supporters throughout the world who had no say in the decisions. That is why I believe TEC has a primary duty to the spiritual welfare of those fellow travelers outside of the States.

In case we still don't get it, MP added a comment that cuts away any last shred of bs:

Too damn right you should come to the rescue and with no feelings of righteousness. America started all this, and with their usual isolationist view of the world, have not thought through the effect their actions will have on progressives elsewhere in the world. Your actions are in serious danger of putting gays and their straight supporters, elsewhere in the world, in an even worse position than they were in before. Therefore, TEC has a responsibility that extends beyond its borders.

Does saying it so bluntly make me wince? Sure. But I think the wincing is the result of hearing a truth that I'd rather not face.

I think some of you have attempted to make this point before, but I couldn't, or wouldn't, hear it. Saying to hell with the rest of the Communion and just breaking off to do our own thing is not an option. We have a responsibility to stay at the table, even if it is in some diminished capacity. Boycotting Lambeth is not really an option, as we would be abandoning our brothers and sisters around the globe.

It's not just about us. It really never was. But now that we've started this thing, we have a duty to see it through to the end, even if it means having to take a few lumps along the way.

The mission of the Church is to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ. That mission does not end at the US border. We do not exist for our own benefit alone. We exist for the sake of the world.

J.

The Gay Expulsion Plan

Ruth Gledhill has written an article about the recent decision by the Synod of the Church of England to move forward in the development of an Anglican Covenant. She has entitled her piece Church takes a step back from schism with gay expulsion plan. Here is how the article begins:

The Church of England took a step towards averting schism over gays yesterday when the General Synod backed a process that would allow the expulsion of rebel provinces from the Anglican Communion.

Some liberals in the established Church oppose the introduction of an Anglican “covenant” outlining a common doctrine that is to be endorsed across all 38 provinces worldwide, because they fear it will limit the traditional diversity that has become a hall-mark of Anglicanism.

But the Synod, meeting in York, voted overwhelmingly to “engage positively” in the creation of the covenant after a series of speakers warned that the dispute over homosexuality had exposed deep flaws in how Anglican unity is maintained. The covenant would prevent any province from consecrating an openly gay bishop, as the US did in 2003 with the election of Gene Robinson to New Hampshire, without risking expulsion...

So, what do you think? Is the proposed Covnant concept a Gay Expulsion Plan? Is that what it is all about?

Let's look at how others are talking about it. Consider the presentation given to the Synod by Abp. Gomez, chair of the Covenant Design Committee:

...Rumours abound that there are plots to carry forward in some provinces a bold agenda on gay marriage, and to require toleration of it across the Communion. Other rumours inform us that the primates are plotting to impose a “collective papacy” on the Anglican Communion. Bishops and archbishops are taking over the care of churches outside their own provinces; new jurisdictions are being erected and bishops are being consecrated and set up in a spirit of competition. People are taking up more and more extreme positions and then defending them; no matter how well founded or sincere the objections...

...For decades, Anglicans have been wondering whether increasing diversity might force the Provinces apart, and asked what holds us together. The days of undefined affection are sadly over, yet this is also not a time when proposals which are brand new would win a broad consensus across the Communion...

Is this a roundabout way of proposing the Gay Expulsion Plan (GEP)? If you are familiar with Abp. Gomez' previous statements on this issue, you are most likely quite aware that this is exactly what he hopes to accomplish.

Stephen Bates' report makes the intention of a Covenant quite clear:

The Church of England yesterday bowed to pleas from two archbishops to help draw up a disciplinary covenant for the worldwide Anglican communion, despite fears that it will lead to the expulsion of liberal believers...

...The proposal for a covenant has been most strongly supported by conservatives and evangelicals within the church, confident that it will enshrine their theology and enforce doctrinal order. They see it as a means of disciplining member churches such as the American Episcopalians who have pressed ahead with the recognition and inclusion of gay members and elected an openly gay bishop in 2003.

Liberals claim the church has never needed a framework before and that the proposal goes against Anglicanism's traditional national autonomy and diversity of practice.

One member, Kevin Ward, representing the northern universities, said: "Gay Anglicans have reason to be suspicious of a covenant. Its sole aim is to punish and discipline dissent ... its whole raison d'etre is one of threat, hardening and solidifying a divisive neo-Anglican communion on a narrower, less tolerant and less joyful basis."

But Tom Wright, the Bishop of Durham and one of the covenant's strongest supporters, told the synod: "Our present framework simply isn't working. We need a framework to enable us to live in the house together. We are not being asked to sign a blank cheque. It is a commitment to a way of working together. It simply will not do to live with differences"...

"It simply will not do to live with differences." It is difficult to believe that an Anglican, let alone a bishop and a scholar, could ever utter such a statement.

I suggest that any future Covenant proposal be referred to as the Gay Expulsion Plan. Lazy typists may want to use GEP. An additional advantage to using the acronym is that in explaining what it stands for one might have an opportunity to speak out about the real agenda behind this flawed Covenant concept.

J.

Synod Approves Covenant Proposal

There were no amendments. The Proposal was carried as presented:

That this Synod:

(a) affirm its willingness to engage positively with the unanimous recommendation of the Primates in February 2007 for a process designed to produce a covenant for the Anglican Communion;

(b) note that such a process will only be concluded when any definitive text has been duly considered through the synodical processes of the provinces of the Communion; and

(c) invite the Presidents, having consulted the House of Bishops and the Archbishops’ Council, to agree the terms of a considered response to the draft from the Covenant Design Group for submission to the Anglican Communion Office by the end of the year.’

The Covenant Draft is now the primary consideration of the Church of England.

Yesterday, before this vote was taken, Dean Colin Slee of Southwark spoke against the proposal in the Guardian:

Tomorrow the general synod of the Church of England will be asked to pass a resolution from the House of Bishops that hands a blank cheque to the archbishops in negotiations with the rest of the Anglican communion for a "covenant"...

...Will the Anglican communion fall apart without a covenant? The communion is voluntary - let the independent provinces choose to belong, or not; but let none of us dictate terms to one another and determine who's in and who's out; let the church be as mature as the Commonwealth and accommodate differences of opinion in something more durable than toleration: love.

It appears that the Dean's words were ignored. As the Church of England goes, so goes the Communion. There is now a very strong probability that we will soon have some kind of covenant to contend with.

J.

Giles Fraser: "I Always Fear 'Real' Believers"

From the Church Times:

...the most dangerous people in the world are those who are absolutely convinced of their own moral virtue and innocence. It is not the scoundrel who is responsible for the darkest moral evil in the world, but the person who is assured of his or her own virtue.

The man who tried to blow up the airport was reported to have emerged from the car, covered in flames. As the fire melted his flesh, he kept repeating the name of God, punching anyone who tried to put his fire out. Here was a man thoroughly convinced that he was doing the right thing. Make no mistake: it was faith that provided him with his moral alibi.

I always fear “real” believers. Whatever their belief system, there are those who think it is so morally watertight that it allows them carte blanche. You can sometimes see it in their faces: not a flicker of self-doubt; not an iota of self-critical awareness. It is not the bad person from whom society has most to fear. The person to be afraid of is the “good” person. I wager there has never been an agnostic suicide-bomber.

All those with religious conviction are called to recognise how dangerous faith can be. That is why it needs a whole raft of checks and balances. And, thank God, these checks and balances are there throughout the Bible. The Gospel passage on Sunday was itself a warning about faith.

This is why the people of faith need more epistemic humility, a great deal more self-awareness, a longer pause before answering the big questions of faith, a more open reflection upon our less flattering motivations. It might be difficult to find the confidence to develop self-critical vigilance when so many others want to disparage faith. But develop it more we must. The people of faith are on the front line in the war on terror.

The Revd Dr. Giles Fraser is Team Rector of Putney. His most recent book is Christianity with Attitude.

A tip of the kamelaukion to John Henry for pointing to this.

J.

General Synod of the Church of England Meeting at York

General Synod will be in session beginning today through next Tuesday. Although General Synod is similar to TEC's General Convention, in that it represents the national assembly of the Church of England, it differs in a few significant ways. It is made up of three houses; bishops, clergy and laity. All three houses meet in joint sessions twice a year; in London in February and in York in July.

Another important difference is the matter of passing "Measures." Synod is the only entity that can pass Measures which will become English law if approved by Parliament. In regards to canonical matters, the Synod can legislate without the approval of Parliament, although such changes or additions must be submitted for Royal Assent.

There's a couple of matters on the Synod's agenda that may be of interest to us. I want to focus on one item; the Anglican Covenant. Synod will debate the Anglican Covenant Proposal on Sunday. Some good background on this, and other Synod matters, can be found at Thinking Anglicans.

Although it is the concept of the development of a "covenant relationship" within the Anglican Communion that is the intended topic for Synod, it appears that the existing Covenant Draft is having a strong influence on all considerations of any kind of covenant arrangement. Consequently, a review of the draft may provide us with some necessary background.

The Anglican Covenant Draft has been widely discussed over the last few months. You may want to review the presentation made to our House of Bishops by the Rev. Katherine Grieb, a member of the Covenant Design Group. We have also previously discussed responses to the Draft Covenant by Frederick Quinn, Lionel Deimel, Abp. Njongonkulu Ndungane and APLM.

A more recent response by Inclusive Church is worth noting:

The growing number of bishops created by African provinces for "pastoral oversight” in North America (and potentially in other provinces), the attempts to create a Covenant that defines Anglican doctrine and ethics, and the apparent intention to organise an alternative to the Lambeth Conference in London next year all point towards one thing. The strategy to destabilise the Anglican Communion is moving into another phase...

...Clearly there are outstanding issues over how the Communion should respond to the reality that many Provinces include lesbian and gay Christians who live with partners in loving, faithful relationships. But the extraordinary way in which this issue has been allowed to dominate the life of the Communion over the past ten years is not coincidence.

There can be little doubt that the issue is being used by some, mainly conservative, Christians as a lever to try to change the Communion into something it is not; from a conciliar church into a confessional one. From a praxis-based Communion where the bonds between us are the bonds of fellowship and love to a codified Communion where exclusions are legally determined and legally enforced, and where the Communion defines itself not by who it includes but by who it excludes.

The Covenant process has been moved, by this group, away from its original intention which was to affirm the bonds of fellowship which exist. The way in which the draft was received by some at the Primates meeting in Tanzania is indication that, whatever the intention, it will be used to enforce a particular interpretation of the Scriptures to the detriment of the life of the Communion. We do not need a Curia, and the process of drafting a Covenant is already giving more power to the Primates than is justified by our history, by our life and by some of their actions to date.

Hard cases make bad laws. We wish to see, urgently, greater understanding between provinces, and we can see the value of a Covenant which enables this to happen . But the proposed draft before us is likely to be an instrument of further division, not unification. Some of our structures may need reform - but it is already clear that this Covenant process is unlikely to help...

The Telegraph is reporting that there is a conservative coalition forming that will attempt to push forward the covenant concept at Synod on Sunday. Church Times offers the details regarding two amendments to the Covenant Proposal.

What troubles me is that the discussion seems to be framed as a debate between some kind of strict formation of mandated beliefs that one must adhere to and a less formalized covenant that would include some basic principles that would be required for one to be called an Anglican. Those two poles suggest a compromise that would give the Primates too much power and would exclude the attributes of diversity and inclusivity, which are also basic Anglican principles.

The discussion needs to be reframed to include the position that no Covenant, of any kind, is necessary or required. We have the creeds. We have the Quadrilateral. Nothing additional is needed. Anything more would severely alter the flavor of Anglicanism, and hinder our witness to the world. Reject the concept of a Covenant altogether.

No doubt that there will be more news on Sunday. In the meantime, what have you spotted of interest in regards to General Synod?

J.

What Has Los Angeles to Do With San Joaquin?

I recently received an email from Jay Luther, who practices law in California. Jay brought up some interesting questions and insights that I thought some of you might want to discuss. So, with Jay's permission, here's his message:

The question, "Is there any chance that the courts might rule differently if an entire diocese attempted to leave, as opposed to just a parish?" is a good one.

Those of us who practice law in California are still trying to figure out all the implications of the 4th District's recent Episcopal Church Cases. One obvious implication is that the pending cases in the Fourth Appellate District, which comprises San Diego, San Bernardino, Riverside, Orange and some less populous counties, will be bound by the decision in the EC Cases, unless the California Supreme Court decides to grant review and sort out our now rather contradictory case law on the subject.

But other intermediate appellate courts are not bound by the Fourth District's ruling. Although the decision in the EC Cases is well-reasoned and persuasive, other Appellate Districts have previously reached other results. For example, the core ruling in the EC Cases may be this language:

. . . the right of the general church in this case to enforce a trust on the local parish property is clear, and that right has not been affected by intervening United States Supreme Court decisions or any statute enacted by the Legislature.
(EC Cases at 76).

By contrast, only three years ago, the Fifth District Court of Appeal ruled that any such trust is revocable by the succeeding church unless that church had declared the trust to be irrevocable. (California-Nevada Annual Conference of the United Methodist Church v. St. Luke's United Methodist Church, 121 Cal. App. 3d 754 ["But we respectfully disagree with the view that acts of a board of directors of a lawfully formed [church] corporation may be viewed by a civil court to be a nullity simply because those acts are deemed unauthorized not by any recognized rule of state law, but rather only by the general church's own rules." 121 Cal. App. 3d at 771]). The California Supreme Court declined review. This case, which was severely criticized in the EC Cases (see pp. 58-59, 71-74), also followed the neutral principles approach to resolving church property issues and rejected the EC Cases' interpretation of Corporation Code 9142, which provides for trusts on church property.

I mention the Fifth District's decision not so much for its logic, which I think severely flawed, but for its geography. The Fifth Appellate District, you see, is headquartered in Fresno, California, where Bp. Schofield hangs his mitre. And as fans of stare decisis may recall, all things being equal, a Court of Appeal is supposed to follow its own decisions, not those of other intermediate courts. True, it has the power to overrule or distinguish California-Nevada when a case involving the Diocese of San Joaquin's rights comes before it, but don't bet on it.

What I'm praying for is that the California Supreme Court grants review in the EC Cases. The record looks good, the reasoning of the Fourth District is impeccable, and there is a pretty good chance that its logic might be accepted by the Supremes and become a clear and uniform rule on a State-wide basis.

Jay Luther
Church of the Redeemer
San Rafael, California
Diocese of California

Knowing very little about how the courts function, beyond a basic civics class a long, long time ago, my response is rather limited.

I believe that the premise the TEC will hold to, I'm fairly sure, is that individuals can leave the church, but a diocese cannot. If we surrender that principle even once, half a dozen dioceses may just bolt.

That's according to our canons, which may or may not carry much weight in court. I think we would be willing to lose a case or two rather than compromise that position.

Regardless of what the courts decide, if Schofield breaks off, his see will be declared vacant, and the faithful remnant will elect a new bishop, new standing committee, and the diocese will begin again.

Your thoughts?

J.

Olbermann: "Bush Should Resign"

I've been a fan of Keith Olbermann since Countdown began back in 2003. His wit and plain-speaking style quickly made him my favorite news commentator. The Oddball and Worst Person in the World segments add a bit of spice to even the most dreary news day.

In the last year, Keith has taken to offering occasional "Special Commentaries," often about Bush's Iraqi adventure. Yesterday he gave what may prove to be his most memorable rant. It is in response to the President pardoning Scooter Libby. You can watch the video and read the text here. I highly recommend watching the video first.

Here's a taste of Keith's message:

...We envelopped our President in 2001.And those who did not believe he should have been elected -- indeed those who did not believe he had been elected -- willingly lowered their voices and assented to the sacred oath of non-partisanship.

And George W. Bush took our assent, and re-configured it, and honed it, and shaped it to a razor-sharp point...,and stabbed this nation in the back with it.

Were there any remaining lingering doubt otherwise, or any remaining lingering hope, it ended yesterday when Mr. Bush commuted the prison sentence of one of his own staffers...

...In that moment, Mr. Bush, you broke that fundamental com-pact between yourself and the majority of this nation's citizens -- the ones who did not cast votes for you.

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you ceased to be the President of the United States.

In that moment, Mr. Bush, you became merely the President… of a rabid and irresponsible corner of the Republican Party.

And this is too important a time, Sir, to have a commander-in-chief who puts party over nation...

...The twists and turns of Plame-Gate, of your precise and intricate lies that sent us into this bottomless pit of Iraq; your lies upon the lies to discredit Joe Wilson; your lies upon the lies upon the lies to throw the sand at the "referee" of Prosecutor Fitzgerald's analogy… these are complex and often painful to follow, and too much, perhaps, for the average citizen.

But when other citizens render a verdict against your man, Mr. Bush -- and then you spit in the faces of those jurors and that judge and the judges who were yet to hear the appeal -- the average citizen understands that, Sir.

It's the fixed ballgame and the rigged casino and the pre-arranged lottery all rolled into one -- and it stinks.

And they know it...

...It is nearly July 4th, Mr. Bush, the commemoration of the moment we Americans decided that rather than live under a King who made up the laws, or erased them, or ignored them -- or commuted the sentences of those rightly convicted under them -- we would force our independence, and regain our sacred freedoms.

We of this time -- and our leaders in Congress, of both parties -- must now live up to those standards which echo through our history:

Pressure, negotiate, impeach -- get you, Mr. Bush, and Mr. Cheney, two men who are now perilous to our Democracy, away from its helm.

For you, Mr. Bush, and for Mr. Cheney, there is a lesser task.

You need merely achieve a very low threshold indeed. Display just that iota of patriotism which Richard Nixon showed, on August 9th, 1974.

Resign.

And give us someone -- anyone -- about whom all of us might yet be able to quote John Wayne, and say, "I didn't vote for him, but he's my president, and I hope he does a good job."

Well said, Keith.

Thank God for the liberties we enjoy in this great nation. Thank God for the freedom of speech that allows a news commentator to tell it like it is without being censored. Thank God for the checks and balances in place that give us the means to remove those unfit for office.

The only question left is if Congress has the courage to do it.

J.

Happy Fourth of July

And hey..........


Be careful out there.

J.

Little Mosque on the Prairie

What do you do if the Archdeacon is coming, and you suspect that after he sees all the empty pews he will recommend closing down your little Anglican parish in Mercy, Saskatchewan?

If you are the Rev. Duncan McGee, you hatch a plan that involves the Muslims who rent out your parish hall and use it as a mosque posing as Anglicans on the Sunday that the Archdeacon visits.

With that background, here's part of episode 6 of Little Mosque on the Prairie. Keep in mind that this is a Canadian sitcom. They have some fun with the Anglicans, the Muslims, the local rednecks and the local politicians. Everyone is fair game for a laugh. As the show's creator, Zarqa Nawaz, has said, "...this is not a program about Islam but is instead about people's relationships, love, family and balancing religious beliefs and generation gaps while living in a prairie community."

It's humor, folks. A much better way to explore the blending of Muslim and Christian communities than the alternative that some seem to favor; launch an Inquisition. Personally, I'll choose humor every time. So sit back and enjoy.



J.

California Court Rules that Diocese Owns St. Luke's, La Crescenta

From today's email:

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge rules that the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles is the rightful owner of the buildings and other property of a conservative La Crescenta congregation that broke away from the diocese last year. The decision against St. Luke's of the Mountains comes barely a week after an appeals court panel in Orange County ruled in favor of the six-county Los Angeles diocese in a similar property dispute with three other local churches.

There's a clear pattern forming. I hope Bp. Schofield is paying attention.

J.

UPDATE: Susan Russell has now posted this at Walking with Integrity with additional information from a Diocese of Los Angeles Media Alert:

..."We're very pleased with this decision today," said Bishop Bruno. "We are a people of reconciliation, and our major concern is for the people of St. Luke's, and how to bring them back into relationship with the Diocese of Los Angeles if they wish. We will pray for them. I hope they will pray for us."

Holme Roberts & Owen partner, John R. Shiner, Chancellor of the Diocese and its attorney in the litigation, called the ruling "another important step to dispel any notion that local congregations of a hierarchical church may leave the larger church and take property with them."

The Facts in the Case of Grace Church, Colorado Springs

Allow me to attempt a summation of the situation at Grace Church, Colorado Springs.

Don Armstrong was the former rector of Grace Church. He was also the former Executive Director of the Anglican Communion Institute. He was inhibited by his bishop last December for alleged financial irregularities. Last March, Armstrong and the leadership of Grace and St. Stephens decided to leave TEC and jump to the Church of Nigeria. This jump to CANA was made the very same day that the charges in the presentment against Armstrong for misuse of funds were revealed by the diocese.

Since then, the Diocese of Colorado has taken action to recover Grace Church. The court documents make a solid case for the diocese.

There continues to be about 500 members of Grace that remain loyal to TEC, but have been forced to worship elsewhere.

Last week, the Colorado Springs Gazette interviewed an attorney for Grace Church and one representing the diocese of Colorado. The specific topic was the influence the recent decision in California might have on their case:

...L. Martin Nussbaum, attorney for the Colorado diocese and local parish, says the ruling reinforces a similar one — Diocese of Colorado v. Mote — upheld by the Colorado Supreme Court in 1986. In that case, a breakaway parish tried to keep church property, but the court ruled the property belonged to the diocese.

“It (the California decision) is a very scholarly explanation of the law that affirms the freedom of a national church to determine its own rules and governance, and in the case of the Episcopal church, prevents a portion of a local congregation to leave the church and take the property,” Nussbaum says.

But Grace CANA’s attorney, Greg Walta, says Colorado v. Mote isn’t as clear-cut when it comes to the local case. The 1986 ruling turned on the fact that the parish had been a mission church under control of the diocese for 20 years, and its organizing document ceded control over its property to the diocese, he says. In contrast, Walta contends that Grace’s articles of incorporation do not mention the diocese, it has title to the local church property and a long history of acting independently from the diocese and at times in defiance of the diocese.

“Our case is more like Dickey v. Snodgrass, a Colorado case that ruled for a local church,” Walta said. “So the outcome will depend on the facts in the case”...

So, it is the "facts of the case" that will decide the outcome?

Grace Concerns, a blog serving the members of Grace Episcopal Church in exile, provides us with a very interesting document: The Article of Dedication and Consecration for Grace Church and St. Stephens, Colorado Springs, dated November 15, 1929 and affixed with the signatures of the Rector, Wardens and members of the Vestry.

Note the final clause of this document:

...And we do moreover hereby relinquish all claim to any right of disposing of the said building, without due consent given by the Ecclesiastical Authority of the Diocese, according to the Canons of the said Diocese, or allowing use of it in any way inconsistent with the terms and true meaning of this Instrument of Donation, and with the Form of Consecration hereby requested of the Bishop.

That seems to make the "facts of the case" rather clear to me.

J.

Akinola's Failed Power Play at Home and Abroad

We have recently discussed Abp. Akinola's failed bid for re-election as the National President of the Christian Association of Nigeria. The indications from those news items suggested that the Archbishop is beginning to fall out of favor among Nigerians. Episcope points us to an article in The Advocate which highlights some additional reasons why Akinola may be losing his hold on power in Nigeria:

...It would be wrong to call Akinola unprincipled. No doubt he, like most Nigerians, grew up believing that homosexuality is a sin. But this pastor has let his flock at home suffer while he networks in America, accumulating power, publicity, and—according to informed observers—money...

...The human cost of Akinola’s vendetta in his homeland should not go unnoticed by LGBT Americans watching his rise here. “Archbishop Akinola is exposing gays and lesbians in Nigeria to danger,” says Davis Mac-Iyalla, director of the pro-LGBT Anglican group Changing Attitude Nigeria. “He’s constantly putting us on the news and saying that homosexuality is evil, thereby making some people take the law into their hands”...

...While Akinola passes such judgments, his fellow Africans struggle with poverty and disease. “We debate these things whilst people are dying,” says Bishop Musonda Trevor Selwyn Mwamba of Botswana.

“[Akinola’s] voice has been the icon of the conservative position,” says Mwamba. “[But] Africa is not a monochrome continent. His is the voice that has been given publicity, but it is not the dominant voice.

“The voice which is not heard,” Mwamba continues, “and this is what I would call the real voice of the Anglican Africans, is a silent voice, which simply seeks to live its Christian values without drawing attention to itself. It’s a voice of trying to make ends meet.”

Mwamba sees the real issues of the African people—poverty, the lack of clean drinking water, nutrition, HIV and AIDS, education, women’s rights—being neglected by the small cadre of bishops led by Akinola. “Thousands of kids are dying every day,” Mwamba says. “Now, those are the issues the church should be addressing.”

...Reverend Emmanuel Sserwadda, the Episcopal Church’s U.S.-based partnership officer for Africa, says Akinola has crippled the church’s efforts to provide aid in Africa...

...Akinola may get joy from preaching his beliefs. But he gets earthly rewards as well. Both Mwamba and Sserwadda say that Akinola and other bishops have been lured away from addressing key African issues by the promise of power and money.

“Most of the influence has been done by people from [the United States] like Martyn Minns, like Bishop [Robert] Duncan from Pittsburgh—that group of people,” says Sserwadda, referring to the two of the better-known conservative Anglicans in America. “Akinola wouldn’t be meddling in the issues of the Episcopal Church had these people not reached out to him. He wouldn’t have a platform [in America].”

The “influence” Sserwadda describes comes in the form of all-expenses-paid trips to the United States, envelopes that contain several hundred to several thousand dollars—gifts big enough to be meaningful for one person but too small to have serious impact on an entire ministry. The money is nearly impossible to track because it isn’t linked to any specific organization...

...For a leader like Akinola, the greatest lure of all may be the chance to play on a world stage. “It is the power issue,” Sserwadda says. “He enjoys it.”

The problem, explains Sserwadda, is that Akinola’s African flock is disempowered. “When you corrupt a leader, then that means you really deny everything to the people under that person,” he says, “because they can’t oppose him or her.”

One anonymous source who is African-born but now works as an Episcopal minister in the United States sees the whole African crusade against homosexuality as someone else’s war.

“For me, the primates in Africa are mercenaries who have been hired to fight a war, which in the U.S. they have lost,” he says, adding that Robinson’s consecration was the final straw. “If you are losing a battle, if you don’t have enough manpower to fight, you go and hire mercenaries from somewhere who can fight for you”...

Regarding Akinola's attempt to establish a beachhead in the US, Elizabeth Kaeton offers us a letter from the retired bishop of California, William E. Swing, which appears in the July issue of Episcopal Life (not yet online). His thoughts are too good to be limited by excerpts, so I'm reprinting the whole thing here:

There was the picture in the newspaper (Sunday, May 6): Archbishop Peter Akinola and Bishop Martyn Minns. Neither was born, schooled, ordained to the priesthood in the United States nor consecrated bishop according to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church. But here they were, determined to overthrow the Episcopal Church, USA, and to replace it with themselves and a small number of American colleagues.

Their aim is not to reform the Episcopal Church or to set up a permanent parallel authority. They intend to become the sole authorized Anglican presence in American. The other side of that coin is that they intend for the Episcopal Church to be cut off from the Anglican Communion and set aside.

It’s quite a bold American strategy for an Englishman and a Nigerian. In a brief time, they want to undo what it has taken many generations of Americans to build.

This is way beyond theology or scriptural interpretations. This is a naked power play that is reminiscent of colonial aspiration in other centuries. Instead of England colonizing Nigeria, we are looking at a picture of a Nigerian and an Englishman trying to colonize the United States, with their unique brand of Anglicanism from an evangelical point of view.

These two people who have not been part of a longstanding American experience smile triumphantly as they embark on a plot to take away our birthright, our heritage, our Anglican connection, our ministries to the poor, our official prayer book tradition, our schools, churches, agencies and our resources.

These two bishops and their colleagues are enjoying the first spoils that arise from our family struggle over human sexuality. But what they don’t realize is that they have touched and trampled on the taproot of our faithfulness to the mission of Jesus Christ in the United States that goes 400 years into the earth of this country. The Episcopal Church will withstand this assault from across the ocean. And our mission will endure, God being our helper.

And while you're clicking around, make sure you go see Richard's "short shopping list for the newly elected missionary bishops in these dark, hostile, heretical parts."

J.

Diana Butler Bass: "Longing for Sock Puppet Church"

Diana Butler Bass, author of The Practicing Congregation and Christianity for the Rest of Us, has spent many years studying mainline congregations that have discovered a new vitality without copying the mega-church, evangelical style. She discovered communities in which tradition, practice and wisdom have emerged as the deepest longings for a new generation of Christians. The conservative vs. liberal arguments are of little or no interest to them. These communities that are flourishing are not stuck in the established models of “doing church,” but see their faith as a corporate pilgrimage, “marked by mobility, choice, risk, reflexivity and reflection."

God's Politics, a blog hosted by Beliefnet and Soujourners, has published Diana's latest essay; Sock Puppet Church. She begins by describing her fond childhood memories of helping her mother prepare for Vacation Bible School. Here's part of it:

...We sat on the living room floor sorting through old socks, bits of yarn and fabric, old buttons, and pipe cleaners. From these scraps we would sew sock puppets of biblical characters. We made Moses and Pharaoh, David and Jonathan, and Mary and Jesus for our amateur productions in the church’s handmade puppet theater. We cut up old Christmas cards for shellac projects and paper-mache collages. We made Bible map stencils to mimeograph and color. And we built the Temple at Jerusalem from sugar cubes...

...My daughter is now nine. It has been a long time since I attended summer Bible school, and now it was her turn for the childhood ritual. As I investigated local programs, however, I was in for a big surprise: Vacation Bible School now comes in a can.

All the programs were pretty much the same. Christian publishing companies have developed Disney-quality VBS weeks bearing names like “The Plunge,” “Holy Land Adventure,” “Quest for Truth,” “Great Bible Reef,” and “SonForce Kids.” Prepackaged, these “complete Bible adventures” come in large cans (admittedly, one arrives in a woven basket) advertising that they contain “everything you need” for a successful Bible school, “just add kids”...

...Lately, I have been reading Bill McKibben’s fine new book, Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. McKibben argues that growth—based on “hyper-individualism”—does not create human happiness, health, and wholeness. Rather, local community and close connections make us happy. We must shift away from a Wal-Mart economy to what he calls a “deep economy,” defined as “the economics of neighborliness.” Less stuff, he suggests, will create more connections by transforming the human economy and makes a “durable future” for the planet.

Although McKibben writes of economics, his argument carries over to faith. Successful American churches are Wal-Mart type congregations, built on the idea that bigger-is-better, hyper-individual faith, and entertaining programs meet an infinitely expanding religious market. That vision creates a culture of religious sameness across the country—indeed, across the globe—that subsumes local cultures in its wake. Want your church to grow? Attend the latest pastors conference offered by a celebrity minister. Do 40 days of purpose or seven steps toward mission. Put on a dazzling Christmas spectacular. Buy Vacation Bible School in a can. You, too, can have a successful church if you lay out the cash...

...I no longer want to belong to an efficient church, a big one, or even a successful one. I just want to be part of a good sock-puppet church. And, as I have traveled this year, and spoken to many thousands of Christians, I had heard them, too, longing for sock puppet church, a deeper congregation, a community that stitches memory from scraps, one that (as McKibben says) “rebalances the scales” of our religious economy—and, in the process, may well transform the world.

Make sure you go read the complete essay.

As someone who has invested quite a bit of time over the last couple of years attending workshops and reading books on "church growth," I find Diana's words resonating quite strongly with my own experience. There is much wisdom offered by the experts in this field, and I've learned many helpful things from them. But the reality is that there is no magical formula for building a community.

Every member of any group brings with them unique gifts. Over time, shared memories are created. It is through recognizing and empowering the gifts present in our midst, while honoring the shared memories, that a cohesive group is formed. Such a group will not feel threatened by someone new joining them, and will often welcome the new gifts that are offered. And out of this welcoming, new memories will emerge that will be cherished for generations to come.

The trick is to walk that fine line between the "one size fits all" approach to living out our faith, and the individualistic inclination that insists that "different" and "new" is always better.

We aren't called to be clones of Jesus, after all. It is our unique gifts, that often don't neatly fit in the box marked "traditional," that we offer to the greater glory of God. But at the same time, we recall that we are part of a great cloud of witnesses; all those who have gone before us proclaiming the Good News. It is not simply our unique group engaged in this mission. We walk with the saints of God. So we tell their stories as well as our own. Their stories are honored as they become part of our shared memories.

It is these shared memories that inform our search for the new thing that God may be doing in our midst. As each group expresses their longing to connect with God and one another, a community emerges. If the community is healthy, it will begin to transform the lives that it touches. Seeing such transformations is one of the most marvelous experiences we will ever witness.

Our previous discussions of the writing of Diana Butler Bass can be found here, here and here.

J.

National HIV Testing Day

From Wormwood's Doxy:

You think HIV is old news, right?
Since we have drugs, and HIV is no longer the death sentence it was in the early 1980s (at least in the developed world), we don’t have to worry about it, right?

Tell that to the 40,000+ Americans who will contract HIV this year.

Tell that to the 1 million+ Americans who are living with HIV.

In particular, tell it to the 25% of that latter group who have no idea they are HIV-infected---and who therefore put every one of their sexual partners (and their sexual partners, etc.) at risk out of ignorance.

I’ve been writing about HIV professionally for seven years now. The numbers haven’t come down in that time, despite our best efforts. And all the data I’m seeing now indicate that the numbers are going up. The prevalence rates for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) in major metropolitan areas are rising dramatically.
STIs are harbingers of HIV/AIDS. They serve almost as a public address system---“This person is engaging in unsafe sexual practices!” They also make people more susceptible to HIV infection.

Mark my words, HIV is going to be news again. The question is: Will anyone pay attention?

From the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services:

An estimated 250,000 people in the United States are HIV/AIDS positive and don't even know it.

HHS is pleased to support National HIV Testing Day on June 27.

National HIV Testing Day is critical to the fight against HIV/AIDS because it presents an opportunity for people nationwide to learn their HIV status, and to gain the knowledge they need to take control of their health and their lives.

National HIV Testing Day also provides an invaluable opportunity to dispel the myths and stigma associated with HIV testing, and to reach those who have never been tested or who have engaged in high-risk behavior since their last test.

You can find an HIV testing site near you here.

Take the Test. Take Control.

J.

Diocese of Los Angeles Favored in Property Disputes

From Episcopal Life:

...A California Court of Appeal has ruled in favor of the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Los Angeles in cases where the majority of members of three Episcopal congregations voted to leave the Episcopal Church for oversight by bishops in another Anglican province.

The decision, which overturns rulings by a lower court, comes in the first of the recent cases brought to recover Episcopal Church property retained by congregations now calling themselves St. James Anglican Church, Newport Beach; All Saints' Anglican Church, Long Beach; and St. David's Anglican Church, North Hollywood. The congregations voted in August 2004 to amend their articles of incorporation, and maintain that they are now part of the Anglican Province of Uganda...

The court documents can be found here. Here's one interesting quote:

...In a word, the lawsuit brought by the plaintiff general church is a property dispute -- basically over who controls a particular church building in Newport Beach -- and does not arise out of some desire on the part of the general church to litigate the free exercise rights of the local congregation. They are free to disaffiliate just so long as they do not try to take the parish property with them. Readers will look in vain in this opinion for any indication of what religious controversy may have prompted the disaffiliation. We may easily reach the merits of the case under both the “principle of government” standard of the Baker-Wheelock line, and the plain language of section 9142, without ever needing to mention the reason for the defendants’ disaffiliation. That controversy is irrelevant to this action....

Richard Zevnik, an attorney who was present for the June 18 hearing, recently left the following comment about this decision:

Procedurally, the disaffected congregations have 30 days to petition for rehearing in the Court of Appeal. Given the standards applicable to granting rehearing and the depth of analysis of the Court of Appeal's decision, there is little likelihood rehearing would be granted if a petition were filed. When the 30 days expires, the congregations then have 10 days to petition for review in the CA Supreme Court. Such a petition is reasonably likely. Review by CA Supreme Court is discretionary. It is also relatively unlikely given the procedural posture of the case.

The Court of Appeal's decision essentially has tied the trial court's hands, and an eventual judgment in favor of the Diocese and TEC is essentially inevitable. There are a number of procedural means by which that result could occur. Essentially what the congregations are left with is discretionary review by the CA Supreme Court, and if none is granted, a petition for a writ of certiorari in the US Supreme Court, which is also discretionary.

You may recognize the name of one of these parishes; St. James, Newport Beach. We have discussed it previously here and here.

To refresh your memory, let me quote a few lines from a Guardian article that is now almost four years old:

Howard F. Ahmanson Jr does not like publicity. The fiftysomething multimillionaire, who lives in Newport Beach, California, is something of a recluse...

...What is known is that in the 1990s Ahmanson, whose family made a fortune in banking, subsidised a number of controversial right-wing causes. These include a magazine called the Chalcedon Report , which carried an article calling for gays to be stoned; a think-tank called the Claremont Institute which promoted a video in which Charlton Heston praises 'the God-fearing Caucasian middle class'; and a scientific body which rejects the theory of evolution.

Now Ahmanson has a new crusade, whose repercussions will be felt far beyond the United States. He is using his cash to stir up the most divisive row facing the Anglican Church, one that threatens to rip it apart when its leaders meet in London this week...

...Leading the backlash is the American Anglican Council (AAC) based in Washington. Until recently the AAC's chief executive officer, David C. Anderson, ran St James Church in Newport Beach, California, where Ahmanson is often to be found in the congregation. The AAC's vice-president, Bruce Chapman, is president of the Discovery Institute, on whose board Ahmanson sits and which publishes research insisting Darwin was wrong...

The parish that brought us Ahmanson, Anderson, the AAC, and its latest incarnation, the Network, may soon once again be a part of the Diocese of Los Angeles. Imagine that.

J.

Bishop Ingham: "Institutional Inertia Rooted in Homophobia"

From the Globe and Mail:

...Bishop Michael Ingham of the Vancouver-area diocese of New Westminster said homophobia, hiding behind interpretations of scripture, remains an acceptable prejudice in Canadian Anglicanism.

"There are members of our church who staunchly defend that. In my view, [it] is a total misreading of scripture and a misuse of the Bible to oppress people. But they clearly want to continue to do that...To say that the blessing of same-sex unions is not in conflict with doctrine is a hugely significant thing," Bishop Ingham said. "But to say at the same time there's no doctrinal conflict but we're not going to [do] anything about it is inertia - it's institutional inertia rooted in homophobia."

The two bishops who voted for the no-conflict resolution but against the blessings were David Torraville of the diocese of Central Newfoundland and James Cowan of the Vancouver Island diocese.

Bishop Cowan said after the vote that, while he favoured same-sex unions, he was still "asking for the theological rationale." Bishop Torraville is known to have faced strong opposition from among his clergy to the blessings...

It may be helpful to remind readers of the definition of "homphobia," as that term is used here. It is drawn from an essay by Andrew Linzey, a member of the Faculty of Theology in the University of Oxford, and Senior Research Fellow of Blackfriars Hall, Oxford, which appeared in Gays and the Future of Anglicanism: Responses to the Windsor Report:

...But by "phobia", I mean simply "fear", "dread", or, better still, "an aversion" - and in that limited sense, it seems to me that many Christians can, and do, experience that kind of phobia about homosexuals largely unconsciously. That doesn't mean that they wish to harm gays, or persecute them, and they would certainly not want anything to do with the kind of outrageous cruelty exhibited by Nazis during the Third Reich. They just have a residual sense that homosexuality is not natural, and that individual gays, while often pleasant and acceptable as individuals, are in some sense "not quite right"...

...Some people say they are not "homophobic", using the word in its etymological sense. Perhaps they are right - they don't fear gay people. Gay people do, however, turn their stomachs. That's the point. It isn't just being frightened. It's loathing, disgust, an aversion. Persons so inclined want to get away from gay people, not (or not simply) because gay people might harm them (maybe that's "fear"), but because gay people might pollute them...

What Andrew has described is sometimes referred to as "The Ick Factor."

Using the above definition, I find Bp. Ingham's comments to be quite accurate.

J.

Clarifying the Property Issue

The Peoria Journal Star recently ran an article under this headline; "Diocese of Quincy gears up for fight with TEC." Here's part of it:

The Episcopal Church has a question for the west-central Illinois Diocese of Quincy:

Are you ready to rummmmmbbbbblllllllllle?

The denomination's executive council declared last week that certain parts of the constitutions of four dioceses, including Quincy, are "null and void," particularly sections which TEC power-structure higher-ups feel might be used to leave the church...

We have previously discussed this action by Executive Council here.

The Rev. Jan Nunley, quoted in the PJS article, has offered us a response. As Jan has done an excellent job of clarifying some of the current confusion, I'm reprinting her entire response here:

...there's a little misunderstanding here. The issue isn't "leaving the church": anyone can do that. Certainly Episcopalians regret anyone making such a decision, especially in anger; we'll miss you, but it's a free church in a free country.

The issue in question here is not "leaving the church," but leaving the church while attempting to take the property lawfully held by them in trust only for the mission and ministry of The Episcopal Church and no other.

See the difference?

One is a decision made in conscience. The other is...well, whatever you want to call walking off with something that isn't yours without the consent of the owners. Which is, last time we checked, an action not exactly fraught with "Christian love and charity."

Ah, but they paid for that property! someone opines, with their tithes and offerings, and the deed is in their names. (This reminds us somewhat of the cynical logic exhibited by the old preacher who used to take the Sunday offering basket out back of the church, toss the contents up in the air, and declare that God was free to take whatever didn't fall to the ground.)

That's true, as far as it goes. But try that with the National Parks System, for example, and see how far you get taking your share of Yellowstone. Why? Because the National Parks are held in trust by the Federal Government for all Americans. And when you pay your fee, you get to use the Park--subject to certain restrictions designed to protect it for future users. And you don't get to take pieces of it home for your kids. Because your neighbor has a right to expect that it will be there next week when she goes on vacation with her kids.

Similarly, when you declare you are no longer affiliated with a group, you don't get to take any office you might have held with you out the door. The moment you say, "That's it! I quit!", you are no longer the Grand Poobah of the Knights Who Say Nee, and the royal regalia stays behind, even if next week you incorporate as The Knights Who Say Nah. You have to get your own regalia, even if your grandmother made the cape.

There's no problem, of course, as long as you abide by these agreed-upon rules of civil society, or if you don't like them, lawfully try to get them changed. But if you fail to get others to agree with you and then try to create "facts on the ground" by changing the locks on the clubhouse...you really shouldn't be surprised if the rest of the members take exception to your actions.

This all seems very self-evident to your editor, but apparently it needed some clarification.

This is how I've always viewed the situation. Since we are a hierarchical church, I hold the bishops and archbishops who claim these churches accountable.

For those not familiar with Monty Python's "The Knights Who Say Nee," you can read the script here.

If this was only about a good shrubbery, one that looks nice, but not too expensive, there might be room for negotiation.

J.

Bishops Defeat ACC's Same Sex Unions Resolution

The resolution, as amended (in italics) was as follows:

Resolution A187

Blessing of Same Sex Unions

Be It Resolved:

That this General Synod affirm the authority and jurisdiction of any diocesen synod,
a)with the concurrence of the diocesan bishop and
b)in a manner which respects the conscience of the incumbent and the will of the parish,
to authorize the blessing of committed same sex unions.

Here are the votes:

Laity - 78 aye / 59 nay
Clergy - 63 aye / 53 nay
Bishops - 19 aye / 21 nay

J.

ACC Declares Blessings Not in Conflict with Core Doctrine

Here is the resolution as amended (in italics).

That this General Synod resolves that the blessing of same-sex unions is consistent not in conflict with the core doctrine, in the sense of being creedal, of The Anglican Church of Canada.

Clergy and Laity - 152 aye / 97 nay
Bishops - 21 aye / 19 nay

Now on to A187.

J.

ACC Accepts the St. Michael Report

The resolution, as originally proposed, is here. It was amended (in italics) as follows:

BE IT RESOLVED:

That this General Synod accept the conclusion of the Primate’s Theological Commission’s St. Michael Report that the blessing of same-sex unions is a matter of doctrine, but is not core doctrine in the sense of being credal, and that it should not be a communion-breaking issue.

The St. Michael Report can be found here.

Live coverage of General Synod can be found here.

J.

Bp. Fred Hiltz Elected Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada

Elected on the fifth ballot:

Fred Hiltz - 60 clergy / 81 lay
Victoria Matthews - 56 clergy /56 lay

A bit of suspense was involved with this. By the third ballot, they were down to two candidates, who appeared to be deadlocked. If the deadlock had lasted for three ballots, the election would have been returned to the House of Bishops.

Here is how "Trinity Matthew" described Bishop Hiltz:

...Fred Hiltz would be deemed the most liberal choice and many will rally around him, in part because he is not from Ontario and because he will be seen to stand in the tradition of the last three Primates who have been progressive: Ted Scott, Michael Peers, Andrew Hutchison. That said, Hiltz would not be considered the most liberal diocesan bishop in Canada by any means. Michael Ingham, New Westminster; Ralph Spence, Niagara; Colin Johnson, Toronto; Bruce Stavert, Quebec, are all probably more liberal. I suspect, though I don’t know for certain, that Hiltz would be sympathetic to efforts to approve same-sex blessings, at least on a diocese by diocese basis. He disappointed many when he declined to stand for the primatial election in 2004, largely due to family concerns. These concerns resolved and progress in his diocese allow him to be nominated this year. With Matthews, Hiltz would have been a strong favorite in 2004. The same is true today. I suspect that ultimately it will be a contest between Hiltz and Matthews. Both are the same age at 53 and could serve until 70, making for long primacies of up to 17 years...

The official press release can be found here.

J.

Facing Lawsuits? Make a Bishop and Solve the Problem

The Living Church is reporting a couple of stories of interest. First, Seven Former Episcopal Churches in California Sued:

Seven Southern California congregations previously affiliated with The Episcopal Church were sued on multiple counts in civil court recently. For at least one it will be the third time it will face an ownership challenge over title to the church property.

The Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church USA, the corporate arm of The Episcopal Church, is a plaintiff against all seven, four of which were formerly part of the Diocese of Los Angeles. The other three were previously affiliated with the Diocese of San Diego. The seven continue to worship at the same locations they used when they were part of The Episcopal Church...

At least two of these congregations, St. James, Newport Beach and All Saints, Long Beach, attempted to leave three years ago. They decided to join the Church of Uganda.

The second bit of interesting news from The Living Church is this story; Uganda to Consecrate Virginia Priest as Missionary Bishop to the U.S.:

...The Rev. John Guernsey, rector of All Saints Anglican Church in Woodbridge, Va., was selected by the Ugandan House of Bishops to oversee its 26 congregations in 12 states. He will be consecrated Sept. 2 in Mbarara, Uganda...

The close proximity of these two stories makes it appear that they are related, as if having a North American bishop will give them more validity in the eyes of the California courts. In spite of my headline, I'm not sure the two stories are related. I just liked the headline.

Note that the decision to make Guernsey a bishop was made in December of 2006. Before the Tanzanian Communique. Before the Camp David House of Bishops meeting. Note also that this makes three; Minns, Atwood and Guernsey. It takes three to make a bishop. After this consecration, they can function indepedently of any foreign bishop, if they so choose.

The reasons given by Orombi for deciding to do this now are rather absurd. The House of Bishops have rejected Tanzania? I think they should, but the final word on that is not expected until September 30, the date set by the Primates, including Orombi. There's a meeting with Canterbury planned between now and then as well. And then he mentions the Executive Council. I thought he was one of those who wanted the "little people" kept out of these deliberations? He offers a very weak justification for such a schismatic act. Obviously something else is going on.

I think this was the plan developed at least three years ago. I don't think anything that has happened since 2003 has altered those plans. And I don't anticipate anything that might happen in the near future will change them, either.

What leads me to this conclusion? A document written by Alison Barfoot (who, incidently, is now attached to the Church of Uganda) entitled "Draft proposal For Overseas AEO (Alternative Episcopal Oversight)." It is dated March 3, 2004. Here's the line that I find quite interesting:

...After several conversations with Bill Atwood of Ekklesia, John Guernsey, Martyn Minns and some clergy seeking "offshore" AEO, this proposal is being submitted as a draft for consideration of a process and protocol for establishing Overseas AEO as an interim stage to the way toward the realignment of Anglicanism in North America and the re-establishment of biblically orthodox faith as normative in North American Anglicanism...

There are the three, Atwood, Guernsey and Minns, named as consultants to the Overseas AEO process back in 2004. And now it just so happens that this same trio will be the first North American bishops of this attempt at "realignment." Just a coincidence? I think not.

Events are unfolding as they were initially planned, including the consecration of bishops who were most likely chosen some years ago. What was most likely left flexible was the dates of these consecration. This latest announcement is for September 2. This will mean that by September 30, the "deadline" imposed by the Primates, they will have their three bishops in place, just in case the Primates decide to allow the development of a new Province in North America.

This is unlikely to happen, in light of how many other Primates are fed up with these pillaging Primates, and certainly don't want them going on plum picking expeditions within their Province. But if it did happen, it could indeed influence some of the secular courts, especially in California, known for its unusual judgments on similar property cases.

There's about 45 churches (actually, the more accurate number is about 36, I'm told) currently being occupied by individuals who claim to have left the Episcopal Church. In most of these cases, the actual congregation; those remaining loyal to the Episcopal Church, are being forced to worship in alternative sites. This is simply unacceptable. Regardless of what happens after September 30, or after Lambeth for that matter, I have little doubt that we'll see each one of these gentlemen in court. Theft is theft, after all, regardless of your big stick and pointy hat.

J.

Regarding the General Synod of the Anglican Church of Canada

The theme of General Synod, currently meeting in Winnepeg, Manitoba, is "Draw the Circle Wide. Draw It Wider Still!" The General Synod, which meets every three years, is the Anglican Church of Canada’s chief governing body with delegates representing 30 dioceses.

Here is part of Archbishop Andrew Hutchison's Primatial Address:

...how do we wish authority to be exercised or limited within our family of churches? And perhaps most important, how will our decisions witness to the Good News of God in Jesus Christ for our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters within the Church and outside it. There are of course many other questions to consider in the hard work of discernment over this issue. We are taught that the first principle of moral theology is obedience to conscience, and I ask each of you to embrace that principle, and with it the ethic of respect for the conscience of those who disagree with your own. The second principle of moral theology is to inform your conscience to bring it, if possible, into line with the teaching of the Church. And here careful listening using the Anglican approach of Scripture, Tradition and Reason will be helpful.

At the end of the day, when decisions are made, they will not be unanimous. Differences will remain, but the unanimous opinion of the Theological Commission (and of many other sources) is that the question of same-gender blessings should not be a communion breaking issue. So the alternative to that is that in keeping with a long Anglican tradition, we make room at the table for those whose views we do not share. For the table is the Lord's and not our own. And it is He who invites us to share the life that is offered there for the sins of the whole world...

There are three proposed resolutions regarding same sex blessings; A186, which states that such blessings are consistent with core doctrine - A187, which authorizes blessings - and B001, which affirms the decision of New Westminster to authorize blessings.

Canon Kenneth Kearon, secretary general of the Anglican Communion, is one of the international observers present at General Synod. The Vancouver Sun is reporting that Canon Kearnon made the following statements:

There's no question the Anglican Church of Canada is a valued member of the Anglican communion. There's never been a scenario considered that would lead to the exclusion of the Anglican Church of Canada.

If this is accurate, it is an extremely bold statement. It becomes more understandable when placed in the context of some of Canon Kearnon's other comments reported by the Anglican Journal:

...The Anglican Communion, he stressed, “is neither a world church nor an international federation. It is a communion of Christian people and the root of our communion is our communion through the Body of Christ.”

He said that Anglicans should not be asking, “what do we have to do to stay in the Anglican Communion? Or what is it that the Communion is demanding of us now?” Rather, they should be asking, “how do I act responsibly to my fellow Christians in the body of Christ? And even more deeply, what does responsibility to my fellow Christians in the Body of Christ mean in our current context?”

Another international observer, Dr. John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, addressed the Synod:

...We need to ask ourselves if we aren't being challenged in our application of Canon law and gracious-magnanimity in relation to the question of Human Sexuality. It's a challenge that won't go away. Personally, I take an orthodox view on human sexuality. The word 'orthodoxy ' from Greek means teaching what is right and true; and in Christian tradition, this leads to glorification -- 'being changed from glory to glory' -- orthodoxy is transformative.

That is why I am persuaded that our sexual affections can no more define who we are than our tribe, ethnicity or nationality. At the deepest ontological level, therefore, there is not such thing as a 'homosexual' or 'a heterosexual', or a 'bi-sexual'; there are human beings, male and female, called t redeemed humanity in Christ, endowed with a complex variety of emotional potentialities and threatened by a complex variety of forms of alienation. "In Christ" -- and in him alone -- "We know both God and human nature as they truly are"; and so in Christ alone we know ourselves as we truly are. There can be no description of human reality, in general or in particular, outside the reality in Christ.

Human sexuality must, therefore, be understood and talked about in the context of the reality in Christ.

What is paramount for me are the words of the Apostle Paul that "I resolved to know nothing (while I was with you) but Jesus Christ, and him crucified." My motivation too in relationship to all those I meet is to seek nothing but Christ crucified among them.

And so in my ministry I have learnt to care, hear and listen to those who describe themselves as Gay or Lesbian. They, like me, are called to redeemed humanity in Christ; and what upsets me is the way in which some of my brothers and sisters in Christ refer to members of Christ's Body (Gay and Lesbian Christians) as if they aren't part of that body. I strongly believe that holy communication is part of Holy Communion...

The Lead points us to Andrew's insightful comments on Dr. Semantu's address.

General Synod will also consider the Report of the Windsor Report Response Group. I was especially pleased to see item 6:

...calls upon those archbishops and other bishops who believe that it is their conscientious duty to intervene in Provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own to implement paragraph 155 of the Windsor Report and to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care...

Later today the Anglican Church of Canada will elect a new Primate. You may recall that "Trinity Matthew" offered us some excellent background on the four candidates. Keep in mind that the ACC does things slightly different from TEC. In the ACC, the bishops nominate, but the lay and clergy delegates elect.

Raspberry Rabbit has some additional links to videos and bloggers covering General Synod.

Remember to keep our Canadian neighbors in your prayers.

J.