The Chicago Consultation

From Mark Harris:

I have just returned from a most amazing Consultation. A group of Anglicans, working for the full inclusion of all members of the Church in the life of the Church and the Anglican Communion have just completed a three day consultation in the Chicago area. The Chicago Consultation, a gathering of lay and ordained people, including diocesan and parish leaders, seminary and university faculty, journalists, members of other Provinces of the Anglican Communion, deputies to General Convention and several members of Executive Council met at Seabury - Western Theological Seminary, December 5-7 to strategize concerning the work ahead...

From Susan Russell:

...We were laity and deacons, priests and bishops; academics and activists, teachers, preachers and bloggers; USA, UK and “Global South;” parish priests and seminary deans -- even a politician and a primate. (All that was missing was the partridge in a pear tree!) We came from all parts of the country and many points of the globe – a genuine incarnation of what Jenny Te Paa called “the small ‘c’ communion” of “Anglican men and women whose lives and whose loves are prescribed by a prior sense of sacred belonging to God and thus to one another” and “who share therefore an unbreakable commitment to the indisputably inclusive Gospel of Jesus Christ.”

The emergence of that unbreakable commitment as our shared Gospel Agenda became the focal point for our imagining a church – a communion – beyond what I have come to think of as “The Inclusion Wars.” And when the wisdom, vision and giftedness in that room full of amazing, faithful people shifted from the “therefores” to the “how-tos” it seemed to me that there was palpable sense of the possible transcending the impasse-able as we began to chart a proactive course forward...

From Tobias Haller

...The Chicago Consultation, as it is being called for short, addressed the prevailing boundary issue that has beset our church and our Communion over the last decades, and most irritably over the last six years: the place of GLBT people in the church’s life and ministry.

In plenary sessions and small groups, we challenged ourselves to find a way forward that would be grounded in the powerful message of Jesus’ call and care. We focused on the the full inclusion of those whom some have determined to be inappropriate minsters of the Gospel, embracing the mandate and charge which comes with the highest authority, and in response to the question, “Who is my neighbor?”

Susan also provides us with an excellent quote from Marilyn McCord Adams, Regis Professor of Divinity at Christ Church, Oxford from her paper presented in Chicago entitled “Shaking the Foundations: LGBT Bishops and Blessings in the Fullness of Time”:

...conservatives have played on liberal propensities for tolerance and inclusiveness to insist that liberals tolerate not only individual beliefs but institutional policies contrary to liberal conscientious beliefs, and to do so no matter who holds the majority...

...In the USA today, we tolerate people who believe the earth is flat. The constitution allows them freedom of assembly. Being a member of the Flat Earth Society doe not jeopardize a citizen’s voting or property-holding rights. But most Americans find the flat-earthers’ views false and irrational. We would not think of tolerating them to the extent of canceling the space program.

Likewise, sex-and-gender liberals have no interest in excommunicating sex-and-gender conservatives or in denying them the institutional access that all members of TEC enjoy. But in the name of faithfulness to the Gospel, sex-and-gender liberals cannot extend toleration to allowing sex-and-gender conservatives to set institutional policy no matter what. Liberals should not be so desperately committed to inclusiveness as to let themselves be held hostage by conservative threats to leave unless they get their way.

Liberals should work within the established polity of TEC and use their majority to uproot homophobia. The reason is straight-forward: homophobia is a sin and its end is now!

Now that's telling it like it is, eh? Time to stop tolerating the intolerant.

This sounds like it was an excellent event. Watch the Episcopal Cafe for publication of the presentations.

Do you think if I started using my real name more often I might get invitations to these kinds of shindigs?

Nah. That'd be too much like work and take all the fun out of this "hobby."

J.

Leaders of San Joaquin Abandon the Episcopal Church

Some of you have joined me in monitoring the actions of the former Episcopal diocese of San Joaquin. I think those of you following the events would agree that this has been an historical moment in the life of the Episcopal Church. It may be wise for us all to remember, however, that this is but one scene; it is certainly not the final act of this particular drama.

The constitutional change, which removed all references to the Episcopal Church, was approved on its second reading.

During that vote, Bp. Schofield made a very curious comment. He announced that if they pass the resolution to join the Southern Cone (which was made public only last night), all diocesan clergy will become members of the Southern Cone. They would have to formally state their refusal of the offer before they would no longer be affiliated with the Southern Cone.

Other amendments to the constitution were approved, including one that made it possible for San Joaquin to allow congregations from outside their diocesan boundaries to join them. In other words, they became a non-geographical diocese.

A resolution which would add a new canon, "Canon 38", which would accept the offer for the diocese to join the Southern Cone was then approved. The impact that this will have on lay members, including members of the vestries and diocesan committees, is unclear at this point. But the impact on the clergy was made very clear by the bishop. They are now members of the Southern Cone, if they want to be or not, according his pronoucement.

As of 2:42 pm EST on December 8, 2007, the bishop and clergy of the diocese of San Joaquin are no longer members of the Episcopal Church.

Of course, we can expect 12 of the clergy (the faithful 12 who voted against these changes) to quickly reject the invitation of the Southern Cone. Remain Episcopal will be meeting shortly after the conclusion of this convention to make plans for the continuation of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, of which Bp. Schofield and at least 70 of the clergy are no longer members.

Regarding the response from the leadership of the Episcopal Church, we have an early report from Episcopal Life:

..."The Episcopal Church receives with sadness the news that some members of this church have made a decision to leave this church," said Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. "We deeply regret their unwillingness or inability to live within the historical Anglican understanding of comprehensiveness. We wish them to know of our prayers for them and their journey. The Episcopal Church will continue in the Diocese of San Joaquin, albeit with new leadership"...

...If Schofield is considered to have abandoned the communion of the church, he would have two months to recant his position. Failing to do so, the matter would be referred to the full House of Bishops. If the House were to concur, the Presiding Bishop would depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Those remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.

An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.

A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

And that's how Nancy Key and other "loyalists" intend to proceed, she said. The group, "Remain Episcopal" will convene immediately after the close of San Joaquin's convention to strategize.

"We are prepared to work with the Episcopal Church to reconstitute our diocese," she said. "I feel this is what we are called to do. I am so convinced of this."

I find this particular drama to hit close to home. I was baptized by "Fr. Vic" Rivera at St. Paul's, Visalia. In some ways, I've always considered San Joaquin as my home diocese. It breaks my heart to see these scoundrels attempt to destroy it.

In the long run, they will not prevail. But they have already done much damage, for which they will one day be held accountable.

May God have mercy on us all.

J.

The Drama Continues to Unfold in San Joaquin

You can watch the Diocese of San Joaquin's Convention here. If you do, I'd recommend making a contribution to Anglican TV. I realize that most of us disagree with those who are hosting this video feed, but they are providing a service. If we use it, it seems to me that they should be compensated.

I watched for awhile last night. There were a few rather chaotic moments. There was about ten minutes of debate at the front table between Fr. Jim Snell and the chancellors regarding if a two thirds majority meant "votes cast" or "all present". The issue was what to do with the vote of those who abstain. They never resolved the question, even though the wording of their constitution clearly states "those present."

What was most interesting was that in the discussions, a question was asked about how the diocese would "transfer" to the Southern Cone. The Bishop casually mentioned a resolution that would be revealed for the first time today (Saturday) that would accomplish that "realignment." At the request of a delegate, copies were to be made and distributed to voting members last night.

Presenting such an important resolution at the last minute is a manuever that Dan Martins previously addressed:

...What I'm suggesting is that adoption of the new Article II is not, in an of itself, a smoking gun. Such evidence of "abandonment of the communion of this church" would have to be found elsewhere, in some other act of the convention or the elected leadership of the diocese (i.e. the Bishop, the Standing Committee, and the Diocesan Council all acting in concert in a way that unambiguously separates themselves from TEC).

One such act, of course, would be for the diocese to accede to some larger direct authority other than the General Convention--like, for instance the Province of the Southern Cone. By all accounts, this is what the Bishop and his inner circle hope will happen. To my knowledge, however, there is no resolution to that effect that has been drafted, vetted, and submitted through channels. Anything that comes before the convention that would formalize an alignment with the Southern Cone will be something that most delegates will not have laid eyes on before their attention is directed to the PowerPoint projection on the white walls of the Eden Community Room of St James' Cathedral. Anything put forward at such a late hour, and without thorough discussion beforehand throughout the diocese, is bound to raise both concern and confusion, which does not bode well for the passage of a resolution that would provide a clear "we're outta here" gloss on the constitutional change...

Pray for the Diocese of San Joaquin.

Pray for the Church.

J.

Intimacy with God

The Advent Day with Martin Smith was just what I needed right now. The following are some thoughts that I jotted down. Note that these are not verbatim quotes from Martin. They represent reflections on what I heard, which may be quite different from what was actually said.

The theme of his three presentations was "Intimacy with God," or how to be "agents of the mystical core of the Gospel." Intimacy may seem to be a word that makes us uncomfortable. It's not a particularly biblical word. It is suggestive of the type of things that would most likely cause the more Puritan side of our personalities to begin frowning. Heaven forbid that anyone actually enjoy something, or even have a little fun.

We've talked before about asking ourselves, on a regular basis, preferably each morning when we wake up, an essential question; "What do you want?" By articulating our desires, by envisioning them in our minds, we take the first step in making them become concrete realities. Beyond that, we enter the day fully conscious of those longings that are the underlying driving force behind much of what we will do and say.

I've suggested that the answer to that question needs to be as particular as possible. But, if we dig deep enough, I think there is a desire that we all share; we want to love, and we want to be loved. We share a longing for intimacy.

When we talk about this longing for intimacy, it is essential that we include the shadow side of this longing. Intimacy includes ambivalence, fear, resistance and avoidance. If we become vulnerable enough to allow another to love us, and for us to return that love, we may get hurt. We may be rejected. We're not sure we can deal with that, especially if the one spurning us is the living God.

Sometimes we sabotage these moments of intimacy, without even consciously knowing we're doing it. The conversation gets too personal, and we quickly change the subject. Someone mentions God, and we get uncomfortable, and launch into a discussion of the advantages of vinyl siding.

Here's the point that I think we need to let sink in:

Often, the Church facilitates and becomes the means of avoiding intimacy with God. Let's talk about biblical interpretation, the capital fund, getting new hymnals, when to genuflect and when to bow...anything but our experiences of being in the presence of the living God.

I think this avoidance has become even more pronounced in the last few years. I find myself much more on guard when I talk about God. I don't want to offend someone by being too "liberal" or too "conservative," depending on the topic. We've become so polarized that talking about personal experiences of God often feels like walking on egg shells.

But, as agents of the mystical core of the Gospel, we are called to "lean right into the painfulness of this resistance." The pain of ministry cannot be avoided.

So, let's lean into it, shall we? For instance, how does the message of "inclusivity" sometimes become a means for avoiding intimacy with God? When it becomes this message; "Come as you are, and stay as you are." This is the shadow side of inclusion; the message is not that God is inclusive, but that we are inclusive.

Of course we welcome all into the kingdom just as they are. But if there is never some kind of transformation, some kind of growth towards union with God, we're just another social club. Unfortunately, it seems that sometimes parts of the Church feels that there is reason to congratulate ourselves for creating a niche for agnostics where they will feel comfortable, without any need to deepen their relationship with God. I don't think so. We are about the business of transforming lives. Some agnostics that I have known are to be commended for upholding their own intellectual integrity. But, at its root, could agnosticism be a rationalized fear of intimacy? If so, do we want to encourage that?

Clergy persons must always be looking for that tension between attraction and resistance. That is the place where we are called to bring the light of Christ. But clergy must never forget that we can be agents of avoidance just as easily as anyone else. The Gospel is not "for export only." I know too well how easy it is for a priest to begin avoiding God.

Are you surprised by that?

Think about it. You start out being faithful in prayer with the people on your heart, in your encounters with others you strive to draw out those moments when they felt closest to God, you preach about being the beloved of God, and for some reason you find yourself being avoided at social events, and whispered about when you enter a room. The community begins to treat you as a nicely vested accessory, so heavenly minded that you are of no earthly good. And the community fails to thrive. Your encounters with God include the whispered word "failure."

Even though that is a response from your own self esteem issues, you believe it to be a word from God, so you reinvent yourself. You watch the cardinal rectors, read the latest books on management, and become a social butterfly. You join some service clubs and the Chamber of Commerce, begin networking with "the suits" and take on only those projects that will generate press coverage. But then, one day, as you are striving to draw closer to God's presence, you hear another word; "prostitute."

Those are extreme examples, of course. The point being that even for clergy, it is sometimes a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. And, if we are not careful, it is so easy to slip into the habit of avoiding God. We're much too busy running a non-profit organization, right?

So how do we overcome our fear of intimacy with God? First of all, by facing those fears honestly. We start by getting honest with ourselves. After all, it is only ourselves that we know we can change. Will that change ripple outward? Maybe. And maybe not. But by recognizing our own avoidance mechanisms, we will stop blaming factors "out there," and begin the much needed interior work that will lead to our own transformation.

And here is the wondrous thing we discover when we honestly look deep within ourselves. We find the spirit of the living God was always there. Through our failures and our simony, God never left.

We've somehow gotten this strange notion that we can evict God, and then, at some later date, invite God back into our lives. Where did that come from? Certainly not from the baptismal rite.

We begin recovering our intimacy with God by starting where we are, deepening what we have, and then, amazingly, discovering that we're already there! That which is the deepest longing of our hearts, to be the beloved of God, never ceased being true.

May we experience that which we already possess; the love of God. And, as agents of transformation in this world, may we seek out new ways to invite others into a deeper intimacy with God.

J.

City of God Appeal

I recently received the following message from our friend Luiz:
______________________________

Dear friends,

For those of you who have facebook, please visit here.

As you might know, I did a placement at Christ the King Anglican Church for almost a year, in Cidade de Deus - Rio de Janeiro. Cidade de Deus (City of God) is one of Brazil's most disadvantaged communities. Built in the sixties to provide a new start for Rio de Janeiro's urban poor, it has become a notorious shanty town, far from being a new hope for the oppressed.

- Only 3% of local people have completed secondary education;
- 22% of residents are unemployed;
- Life expectancy is just 66 (the Brazilian average is above 70);
- 14% of teenage girls are pregnant;
- Average income is just US$ 100.00 per month.

We have started some months ago, a ministry with children of that community, providing them Christian Education, activities, and meals. The parish was experiencing a rebirth (it almost closed), and already had some social projects... so, I sent an appeal to several people, for help.

A couple months ago, two individuals, plus our friends of All Saints' Episcopal Church in Atlanta, have sent about 850.00 US Dollars, which are already being used for buying toys, food for meals we prepare for the children and parishioners and some vestments for our new children choir.

It happens that some sisters and brothers in Christ have started a wonderful Christmas initiative too, in order to raise funds for Christ the King. I do kindly ask you to take a look at the following options:

- PayPal

Currently, some of our OCICBW friends have set up a PayPal account which can be accessed here. They have graciously started a Christmas appeal. Do find out about it!

- Cheques

In the U.K. cheques (made payable to "St. Francis Church") can be sent to:
CITY OF GOD APPEAL,
St. Francis House
18 Cotswold Gardens
High Heaton
Newcastle Upon Tyne
NE7 7AE
(Please write "City Of God Appeal" on the reverse of the cheque.)

In the United States, cheques (made payable to "The Episcopal Church of St. Paul") can be sent to:
CITY OF GOD APPEAL
c/o The Reverend Elizabeth Kaeton
The Episcopal Church of St. Paul
200 Main Street
Chatham, NJ 07928

- ERD

You can also donate to Episcopal Relief and Development here. They have been doing a wonderful job helping sponsor one of our projects and surely deserve your help, so, in the future, more and more projects can be funded by them.

If you have questions on Christ the King's projects or on how we intend to use the money, please, feel free to ask. You can ask me or Fr. Eduardo: eduardocosta79 (at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br

We are also proud to present Fr. Nicholas Wheeler, a wonderful friend of ours who is coming work at Christ the King as a USPG missionary. Fr. Wheeler is currently the team rector of Old St. Pancras' in London. You can find out more about him here.

Blessings in Christ,

Luiz Coelho

_______________________________

This looks like a good outreach opportunity. MadPriest's "Day 7" update on this appeal is here.

J.

Martin Smith: "Become More Outspoken"

Tommorrow, I will attend an Advent Clergy Day at the Cathedral. We will be offered meditations from the Reverend Martin Smith, a well known retreat leader and author.

Although he doesn't know it, Martin has already played a significant role in my own spiritual journey. In 1985, a wise priest suggested that I consider making a "life confession." This involved prayerfully reviewing my life and noting those moments when I had fallen short. As a resource for this spiritual exercise, I used Martin Smith's first book, Reconciliation; Preparation for Confession in the Episcopal Church.

I highly recommend this volume to anyone considering such an exercise. Under his guidance, and after about a month of reflection, I made a "life confession," which to this day remains an important turning point in my own spiritual life. The road leading to that point had been a bumpy one, including being homeless and incarcerated. By identifying the ways in which I had sinned, rather than blaming others and justifying my behaviors, the healing of my past was initiated. That healing may end up being a life-long process. But when I look back, I believe it began with that first confession.

The Daily Episcopalian is currently hosting an essay by Martin Smith entitled Matters of Life and Death. It is a must read. Here's part of it:

I was walking along P Street in Washington, D. C., the other day pondering a phrase our Presiding Bishop used in a recent webcast, when she spoke of the need for the church to move on from the controversies surrounding sexuality to “refocus on matters of life and death like starvation, education, medical care.” I know she was using “life and death” to mean “of the highest priority.” But for gay people it’s hard to hear straight folks using language that, even inadvertently, seems to imply that the struggles we must undergo are not matters of life and death. In fact they are—sometimes in the most literal way. Ironically, I found myself halting outside the paint store on the corner of 15th Street NW. It was here that my partner and I experienced the second of two attempted gay-bashing assaults...

...As I paused outside the paint store, I realized I had never told the story of the two attempted assaults from which I had narrowly escaped to more than a few friends. I didn’t want to worry my family, and these are grotesque stories for a middle-aged clergyman to recount. Yet the real reason is that most gay folk are trained to take their vulnerability for granted. We suck it in. But maybe we must change that. Straight people enjoy innumerable unearned privileges denied to gays, just as white folk have unearned privileges denied to people of color. We shouldn’t add another one to the list, the privilege of being spared the pain of hearing about our wearying and incessant experiences of being attacked, condescended to, marginalized, insulted and patronized.

No one looks forward more eagerly than gay folk to the day when issues like the eligibility of partnered gay and lesbian priests for the office of bishop will sink to a lower place in our order of priorities. But in the painful meantime, while the progress of equality in the ministry is temporarily halted, the task of making sure that the life and death stories of gay and lesbian people are heard grows in urgency. And gay and lesbian Christians will have to become more outspoken, not less, even in the face of pressure from those who seem to be signaling that it is high time we fell silent again.

My avoidance, my silence, regarding the ways in which my own behaviors contributed to the traumas of my youth had blocked the way to spiritual wholeness. In a similar manner, when the Church advises silence on matters that are literally life and death issues to her members, the Church is blocking the way for real reconciliation to occur.

We can pretend that the Church has no role in these attacks and insults directed towards some of our members. We can imagine that the silence from the Church does not encourage those disturbed individuals who seek justification for their violent acts. But that would be less than honest.

We need to hear from our victims. They must become more outspoken, if the Church is to ever stop pretending, imagining and blaming others, and finally face the ways that we have fallen short.

Will such outspoken voices further threaten our unity? Perhaps. But a unity gained by muzzling our victims would be an ugly distortion of the intended outcome, it seems to me. True unity can only be achieved when honest confession is an integral component of the healing process.

J.

Presiding Bishop Asks Bp. Schofield to "Consider a More Honorable Course"

The Diocese of San Joaquin will hold their Convention this weekend. They will vote for a second and final time on a constitutional amendment which would remove all references to "The Episcopal Church." For some background on this, I refer you to a previous discussion; Bp. Schofield's Deanery Presentations.

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has sent a letter to Bp. Schofield, advising him to not proceed along this path. Although it is similar in many respects to the previous letters Bp. Katharine has sent to Fort Worth and Pittsburgh, this one seems to be somewhat more personalized. Here is the last paragraph:

...While you may believe that the Diocese of San Joaquin can be welcomed into another Province of the Anglican Communion, I believe you will find that few parts of the Communion will recognize such a proposal. Such an action is without precedent, violates long-standing principles of catholic Christianity, and can only harm those faithful Episcopalians who only seek to follow Christ. I urge you to consider whether there might not be a more honorable course for you, personally, than seeking to violate your ordination vows and the Canons of this Church. Together with many in this Church, I would very much value your continued and increased presence at the table – both the table of Jesus Christ and the table of fellowship...

So, what will happen in San Joaquin next weekend? The best reflection on possible outcomes, including some explanations of what they might mean, is offered by Dan Martins, who served as a priest in San Joaquin for 13 years, and was very involved in many aspects of the life of that diocese until recently being called to a parish in Indiana.

Dan suggests that the wording of the amendment to the consititution does not necessarily offer evidence of "abandonment." Although references to "The Episcopal Church" are replaced by "The Anglican Communion," it would be possible for the diocese to continue to accept and live within the boundaries of the constitution and canons of TEC if such a resolution was passed.

Dan also points out that a resolution that attempted to place the diocese under the authority of the Southern Cone would indeed be evidence of abandonment. As of now, no such resolution has been circulated. If it is suddenly introduced at Convention, it would be most inappropriate. Such a critical vote would demand much more discussion than the setting of Convention would allow.

Pray for the members of the Diocese of San Joaquin.

Pray for the Church.

J.

Penn State Launches Study of Episcopal Blogs

I was recently contacted by Niyati Kataria, a doctoral student at the Pennsylvania State University. She is doing research on Episcopal blogs for a project entitled "Qualitative Study of Episcopal Church Blogs." I don't think I'll say much more about the details of the project, for two reasons; first, unless you are part of the academic world, the explanation probably won't mean much to you (I'm not exactly sure what it's all about), and secondly, I think I might mess up the quality of the research if I say too much.

Niyati will be studying selected posts and comments here at Jake's place, and some of those materials may end up in her final paper. Consequently, she has asked me to post the following announcement:

Dear bloggers,

My name is Niyati Kataria and I’m conducting research for my graduate degree at The Pennsylvania State University. I would like to use data in the form of your blog posts and comments (posted from October 2004 to the most current entry) on this blog site for my research. The results of my study may be published and if and when this happens, the following measures will be taken to ensure your confidentiality:

1. This blog site name will be disguised. The site will be called by a pseudonym such as 'blog1'.

2. The usernames you use on this site will not be used to refer to your posts in my paper. Instead I will assign pseudonyms such as 'blogger 1, blogger 2' etc. to refer to the identity of the person who posted the blog that is selected to be included in the paper.

Despite the above measures, if you would like me to not use any particular posts posted by you, please let me know which posts you would like me to withdraw from the study by emailing me at nuk133 (at) psu (dot) edu. Please do so by 15 December 2007.

Additionally, if you would be interested in the results of the analysis of this paper, I would be happy to send you a copy of the same if you request it by writing to me at the above mentioned email address.
Thanks and best regards,
Niyati Kataria

I've given Niyati permission to use my name and the name of this site in her research.

So, there it is. We are doing our part to further higher education.

I had the opportunity to talk with Niyati for about an hour the other day. She is a delightful young lady, so everyone relax and be yourselves. If being quoted makes you nervous, I'd suggest you choose some new catchy nickname. Something with "eccentric" or "heretic" in it would seem appropriate.

I have no idea what sites are participating in this study. So far, the only other place I've seen this announcement is over at the Episcopal Majority. That's a fine place, run by a great group of people (hey, Lisa!), so we're in good company.

One final note on another matter; I had a good conversation with Harry today. The "Sail in the Wilderness" school project in Tanganyika is moving forward. We want to do this right, which means taking the time needed to properly set things in motion. The website will be back up within the next few days, and Harry will be giving us an update soon.

J.

Advent Begins

This brief season of Advent seems to almost get lost every year. In a world in which my neighbors hang their Christmas lights up the day after Thanksgiving, and the stores are already piping carols through the air, these four weeks of preparation and anticipation seems out of step.
Even within the Church, it seems that sometimes we're not sure exactly what to do with this season. Following the Eastern Orthodox tradition, many congregations make it into a Winter Lent of sorts.

I tend to see Advent as a season of expectation, or more specifically, a time to rediscover hope. We prepare for the arrival of Christ as a child in the manger, the First Advent, while also anticipating Christ's coming again in great glory; the Second Advent. At the same time, we also create an empty place within our own hearts where Christ might be born anew.

We yearn for deliverance from the brokenness of this world. The Israelites in Egypt cried out from their slavery. This is the cry of all of us who recognize that this world is broken, and we can't fix it. Our hope of deliverance is placed in a loving God who has heard our cries.

O come, O come, Emmanuel,
And ransom captive Israel,
That mourns in lonely exile here
Until the Son of God appear.

Desiring deliverance from this world's brokenness would of course include a recognition of our own personal contribution to this state. So penitence is certainly an aspect of this season. But I think that Advent calls us to recognize that our world is broken in ways that are much bigger than our own interior lives. It is beyond our control. But to avoid falling into despair, we let this awareness allow hope to take root and grow, bursting into full bloom on Christmas day.

We begin this season shrouded in darkness, with one solitary candle to show us the way. I don't know if it is the season, or just my own personal state at the moment, but I have found a deep heaviness of spirit settling upon me over the last few days. Despair is a demon that I must regularly confront. I imagine some of you know this particular malevolent spirit as well. May we never forget that we do not have to face it alone; we place our hope in a Savior who will deliver us, and his angels who move among us.

The Episcopal Cafe's "Speaking to the Soul" site is offering a reflection that I found to resonate quite strongly with me today, as it seems to capture my understanding of this season of Advent quite well. It is from Father Alfred Delp, a Jesuit priest, who wrote this piece in a Nazi prison shortly before he was hanged in 1945. It is entitled Beginning to Shake. Here's part of it:

...We may ask why God has sent us into this time, why he has sent this whirlwind over the earth, why he keeps us in this chaos where all appears hopeless and dark and why there seems to be no end to this in sight. The answer to this question is perhaps that we were living on earth in an utterly false and counterfeit security. And now God strikes the earth till it resounds, now he shakes and shatters; not to pound us with fear, but to teach us one thing—the spirit’s innermost moving and being moved.

Here is the message of Advent: faced with him who is the Last, the world will begin to shake. Only when we do not cling to false securities will our eyes be able to see this Last One and get to the bottom of things. Only then will we be able to guard our life from the frights and terrors into which God the Lord has let the world sink to teach us, so that we may awaken from sleep, as Paul says, and see that it is time to repent, time to change things. It is time to say, “All right, it was night; but let that be over now and let us be ready for the day.” We must do this with a decision that comes out of these very horrors we have experienced and all that is connected with them; and because of this our decision will be unshakable even in uncertainty...

Uncomfortable, but true, words, at least from my current perspective .

The Episcopal Diocese of Washington is once again offering their online Advent Calendar. They provide artwork, a meditation, lessons, a "Carol of the Day" and a suggested action for each day of the season. It is a wonderful resource for those looking for a daily discipline to adopt during Advent.

O come, Thou Day-spring, come and cheer
Our spirits by Thine advent here;
Disperse the gloomy clouds of night,
And death’s dark shadows put to flight.

Rejoice! Rejoice!
Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.

J.

World AIDS Day: "Keep the Promise - Take the Lead"

Some facts about HIV and AIDS from the World Health Organization:

Number of people living with HIV in 2007:

Total - 33.2 million [30.6–36.1 million]

Adults - 30.8 million [28.2–33.6 million]

Women - 15.4 million [13.9–16.6 million]

Children under 15 years - 2.5 million [2.2–2.6 million]

People newly infected with HIV in 2007:

Total - 2.5 million [1.8–4.1 million]

Adults - 2.1 million [1.4–3.6 million]

Children under 15 years - 420,000 [350,000–540,000]

AIDS deaths in 2007:

Total - 2.1 million [1.9–2.4 million]

Adults - 1.7 million [1.6–2.1 million]

Children under 15 years - 330,000 [310,000–380,000]

From Episcopal Relief and Development:

Episcopal Relief and Development remembers people affected by HIV/AIDS around the world. According to the latest UNAIDS statistics, the number of people living with the disease has dropped from close to 40 million to roughly 33 million in 2007. The theme of this year’s World AIDS Day is “Keep the Promise -Take the Lead”, highlighting the need for strong and dedicated leaders from all levels of society to join the effort to prevent and combat this deadly disease.

Episcopal Relief and Development has HIV/AIDS programs in countries most devastated by the disease such as Honduras, DR Congo, Burundi, Namibia, Peru, Tanzania, South Africa, the Dominican Republic, Swaziland, Botswana, El Salvador and many others. Working in partnership with the worldwide Church and ecumenical agencies, Episcopal Relief and Development is committed to fighting HIV/AIDS by offering prevention education and training to vulnerable communities, providing economic opportunities and caring for people living with HIV/AIDS, supporting orphaned children and families left behind and most recently, preventing mother-to-child transmission...

... On World AIDS Day, December 1st, you can join millions of people in the fight against HIV/AIDS in your own local community and worldwide. Here are a few ways you can make a difference:

Pray for the over 33 million people living with HIV/AIDS and the children and families left behind.

Remember the 25 million people who have died of AIDS.

Educate yourself and others about the disease and its impact on people everywhere.

Give a donation that will help vulnerable people and communities fight this deadly disease.

From Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori:

...The statistics tell what has become an all too familiar story—namely, that HIV/AIDS devastates society’s most marginalized communities. Among people who are HIV positive, the groups showing the fastest and highest increases within the United States are youth, women, and people of color. We must attend to, and work to change, the ways in which social stigmatization, particularly racism and gender discrimination, serve to exacerbate the spread of this disease.

All of us are called to follow in Jesus’ footsteps in bringing God’s hope and healing to those who live with this disease. I am particularly grateful for the National Episcopal AIDS Coalition’s work in challenging the stigma that still haunts this disease. NEAC’s work, along with that of so many others, makes manifest the gift of God’s persistent love. It is as bearers of this love that we are called bring “the oil of gladness instead of mourning.”

From the Archbishop of Canterbury:



A hymn:

Author God, you rewrite stories,
Turn life’s losses into gain;
Hope is known when life seems hopeless
Health arises from the pain…
God of hope and God of healing,
Ever turning lives around,
Come, restore and reinspire us,
Free the hearts that fear has bound.

-Rosemary Brown

Let us pray:

We humbly beg of you, O God, mercifully to look upon your people as we suffer from AIDS and all other diseases: protect the healthy, calm the frightened, give courage to those in pain, comfort the dying, grant to the dead everlasting life; console the bereaved, bless those who care for the sick, and hasten the discovery of a cure. And finally, O compassionate God, grant that in this and all our troubles we may put our whole trust and confidence in your steadfast love; through Jesus Christ our Savior. Amen.

J.

UPDATE Wormwood's Doxy, who has written or edited much of the material for AIDS.gov, the "main gateway to information on Federal domestic HIV/AIDS resources," has offered a post with additional excellent links; An Unhappy Anniversary.

The Evangelicals Rush to War

Charles Marsh, professor of religion at the University of Virginia, offers us an essay in the Boston Globe entitled God and Country. Here's part of it:

...Why did American evangelicals not pause for a moment in the rush to war to consider the near-unanimous disapproval of the global Christian community? The worldwide Christian opposition seems to me the most neglected story related to the religious debate about Iraq: Despite approval for the president's decision to go to war by 87 percent of white evangelicals in April 2003, according to a Pew Charitable Trusts poll, almost every Christian leader in the world (and almost every nonevangelical leader in the United States) voiced opposition to the war...

...These past six years have been transformative in the religious history of the United States. It is arguably the passing of the evangelical moment -- if not the end of evangelicalism's cultural and political relevance, then certainly the loss of its theological credibility. Conservative evangelical elites, in exchange for political access and power, have ransacked the faith and trivialized its convictions. It is as though these Christians consider themselves to be recipients of a special revelation, as if God has whispered eternal secrets in their ears and summoned them to world-historic leadership in the present and future...

...Franklin Graham, the evangelist (and son of Billy Graham), boasted that the American invasion of Iraq opens up exciting new opportunities for missions to non-Christian Arabs. This is not what the Hebrew or Christian prophets meant by righteousness and discipleship. In fact, the grotesque notion that preemptive war and the destruction of innocent life pave the way for the preaching of the Christian message strikes me as a mockery and a betrayal.

But if Franklin Graham speaks truthfully of the Christian faith and its mission in the world -- as many evangelicals seem to believe -- then we should have none of it. Rather, we should join the ranks of righteous unbelievers and big-hearted humanists who rage against cruelty and oppression with the intensity of people who live fully in this world. I am certain that it would be better for Christians to stand in solidarity with compassionate atheists and agnostics, firmly resolved against injustice and cruelty, than to sing "Amazing Grace" with the heroic masses who cannot tell the difference between the cross and the flag.

One would hope that we are seeing the American evangelicals' trend of depicting Jesus as the new Rambo finally coming to an end. Enough innocent blood has been shed because of our President's most un-Christian adventure in Iraq.

The damage already done to the good name of the United States of America may never be repaired. But that is almost a secondary tragedy to me. The damage that has been done to the name of Jesus Christ breaks my heart.

In the name of God, clear the troops out of Iraq, and get rid of the fanatics suffering from megalomania in the White House.

J.

From Canada: "Actions of the Southern Cone are Inappropriate, Unwelcome and Invalid"

From a statement issued by the Primate and Metropolitans of the Anglican Church of Canada:

...It is in this context that we deplore recent actions on the part of the Primate and General Synod of the Province of the Southern Cone to extend its jurisdiction into Canada through the Essentials Network Conference. This action breaks fellowship within the Anglican Church of Canada and the Anglican Communion.

We affirm the statement unanimously agreed to by the Council of General Synod which appeals to the Archbishop of Canterbury “to make clear that such actions are not a valid expression of Anglicanism.” We too appeal to him in his capacity as one of the instruments of communion and as chair of the Primates' Meeting to address the very serious issues raised by this intervention.

The actions by the Primate of the Southern Cone are not necessary. Our bishops have made adequate and appropriate provision for the pastoral care and episcopal support of all members of the Anglican Church of Canada, including those who find themselves in conscientious disagreement with the view of their bishop and synod over the blessing of same-sex unions. These provisions, contained in the document known as Shared Episcopal Ministry, were adopted by the House of Bishops and commended by the panel of reference appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The actions by the Primate of the Southern Cone are also inappropriate. They contravene ancient canons of the Church going as far back as the 4th century, as well as statements of the Lambeth Conference, the Windsor report and the Communiqué from the Primates' Meeting earlier this year. Furthermore these actions violate Canon XVII of the Anglican Church of Canada which states that “No Bishop priest or deacon shall exercise ordained ministry in a diocese without the license or temporary permission of the Diocesan Bishop.”

Any ministry exercised in Canada by those received into the Province of the Southern Cone after voluntarily relinquishing the exercise of their ministry in the Anglican Church of Canada is inappropriate, unwelcome and invalid. We are aware that some bishops have, or will be making statements to that effect in their own dioceses...

A tip of the campello to Nicholas Knisely at The Lead for this one.

J.

Church of England Newspaper Gets It Wrong

You may recall our recent discussion of the summary of responses from the Primates and members of the Anglican Consultative Counsel to the report of the Joint Standing Committee. The JSC gave the most recent House of Bishops' statement a passing mark. You can see the summary of the Primates' and ACC's responses here and here.

To refresh your memory, here's the breakdown of responses:

Responses from the Primates to the JSC Report (38 total):

12 - Agree
10 - Disagree
3 - Mixed Response
1 - Will Respond Later
12 - No Response

Responses from the Anglican Consultative Council to the JSC Report (73 total):

13 - Agree
2 - Disagree
2 - Mixed response
8 - JSC Member
48 - No Response

The lack of responses within 30 days, as requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury, results in these numbers adding little to our understanding of the mind of the Primates or the members of the ACC. But, those are the numbers we have. They show agreement with the JSC report by a very small margin among the Primates, and agreement with JSC report by a much larger margin from the members of the ACC.

Note that there is no indication in the summary, or from statements from Canterbury, that an updated report will be issued when and if there are additional responses after the 30 day deadline. Since the Archbishop of Canterbury is expected to release his statement on this matter within the next few days, it is safe to assume that this is the information on which he will base his statement.

What is quite curious is this article written by George Conger, which will appear in the Church of England Newspaper on November 30. Here is how it begins:

The Primates have returned a vote of no confidence in the Episcopal Church. Lambeth Palace reports that a majority of primates have rejected the conclusions of the ACC/Primates Joint Standing Committtee (JSC), and have told the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams the Episcopal Church has failed, in whole or in part, to honor the recommendations of the Windsor Report and the Primates’ Dar es Salaam communiqué...

A majority of primates have rejected the conclusions of the JSC? Where in the world is Conger getting this?

Apparently, he begins to justify this clearly erroneous statement by getting the numbers wrong:

...Of the 38 primates, including the Archbishop of York, Dr. John Sentamu, Lambeth Palace reported it had received 26 responses, and no reply from 12. Of the 26, 12 stated they could accept the JSC’s findings, 12 stated they rejected the JSC’s findings, while three offered a mixed verdict, and one said it was continuing to review the matter...

I think you need to look again, George. In the pie charts, and in the text of the summary, it is clearly stated that 12 Primates agreed with the JSC, and 10 disagreed. The numbers you offer add up to 28 responses, not 26.

Conger goes on to point out what he perceives as the errors in the summary:

...Details of who voted how were not released, nor did the summary stand close comparison to the body of the report. While the summary graph reported 10 provinces as not having responded, the paper identified 12 no responses. Twelve provinces were stated to have rejected the report in the summary, while the body of the paper stated this number was 10. Three provinces were listed as having given mixed responses in the summary, while the body of the paper said two provinces had so spoken...

No, George. I suspect you have mixed up the shades of purple used in the graph. The pie chart shows 12 Primates not responding, as is repeated in the text. The chart also identifies 10 Primates as disagreeing, which is also affirmed in the text.

We can agree that there is some discrepancy regarding the number of mixed responses: the chart shows three while the written report identifies two.

Conger's error brings him to the mistaken conclusion that there was a draw regarding Primates agreeing or disagreeing with the JSC; 12 to 12. How does he get from there to "a majority of primates have rejected the conclusions of the ACC/Primates Joint Standing Committee"? By speculating on how the non-responders might have responded:

...Of those who had not responded, three were from Africa, three from the Indian subcontinent, two from Central and South America, and four from other areas. However, based on past statements from the African and South Asian provinces, the majority reporting a mixed or negative response will be increased to roughly a two third’s margin once their views are communicated to London...

That's an interesting opinion. It is certainly not a fact, as suggested in his opening paragraph. There is also the assumption that late reports from the Primates will change anything. Since Canterbury's response will most likely have already be made by the time such reports are submitted (if they ever are), they will really have little, if any, impact on the final result.

I understand that George Conger reports not only for the Church of England Newspaper, but also for the Living Church. I would suggest that he spend a bit more time reviewing his articles before publishing them, if he wants to keep his credibility as a reporter. If a parish priest running a little backwater blog can spot spin based on errors, it is safe to assume that more prominent personages are also not blind to such things.

Maybe this was just a mistake? Possibly. I've certainly made my share. Just pull the story, or at least correct the errors, and we'll all move on.

J.

UPDATE: Apparently, the article written by George Conger has been revised. The new version can be found here. It covers much of the same material, but the errors are corrected, and the spin is slightly subdued.

Should Lambeth be Cancelled?

In October, the Diocese of Utah, meeting in Convention, endorsed a recommendation from Bishop Carolyn Tanner Irish that the 2008 Lambeth Conference be cancelled. Here is part of the letter of explanation that Bp. Irish sent to the Presiding Bishop:

...We urge you to ask the Archbishop to cancel the Lambeth Conference for 2008.

EXPLANATION:
• The Communion is in such disarray over who recognizes whom, and the participation of “irregularly consecrated” bishops, that little good can come from the fragmented gatherings sure to take place at the Conference, and even attendance at common worship is unlikely.

• We are unclear about the “other issues” being raised around the Communion, although the Archbishop suggests they are “very specific.” Within the constitution and canons of our church we have responded faithfully and courteously to the demands of others, even though questioning their authority to set the conditions of our continued participation in the Communion.

• We are leery about using the occasion of the Conference to present a Covenant that is exclusionary, that centralizes authority, or that adds to the core doctrine of our faith.

• The cost of holding the Lambeth Conference under the present circumstances is disproportionate to its benefits, and to the good we can do elsewhere in the mission of the church.

• Given the disarray we referred to above, we think that a Lambeth Conference in the near future would be disastrous to our public image around the world.

The Diocese of Olympia soon passed a similar resolution at their Convention:

...The text approved by the convention said, “We are leery about using the occasion of the [2008 Lambeth] Conference to present a Covenant that is exclusionary, that centralizes authority, or that adds to the core doctrine of our faith. The cost of holding the Lambeth Conference under the present circumstances is disproportionate to its benefits, and the good we can do elsewhere in the mission of the church”...

The bishops of Nigeria want to call it off as well. One of the reasons they list is their fear of protesters (go Josh!).

The Daily Episcopalian is hosting an essay by the Rt. Rev. Steven Charleston, former Bishop of Alaska and current president and dean of Episcopal Divinity School, in which he explores the question of canceling Lambeth. Here's part of it:

...But would cancelling Lambeth be a mistake? Should we not come to the table, perhaps most especially when we disagree? The knee jerk answer should be yes, that sounds right, but the realities of past experience should caution us to think twice before we respond. The performance of some bishops at Primates’ gatherings demonstrates that unless there is a firm hand at the tiller of Lambeth, any amount of childish posturing and manipulating is likely to reoccur. In addition, the sad sight of bishops refusing to worship with one another is hardly a global invitation to join such a fractured community. And finally, with special authority being granted and cited for pronouncements coming from non-legislative meetings like Lambeth, running the risk that some partisan “resolution” will be adopted and enshrined into dogma is a risk not worth taking.

But perhaps the most persuasive thing about the Utah suggestion is that it forces us to confront our own dysfunction. More meetings enable more silly behavior. The waffling of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the manipulation of meetings by some bishops, and the lame rhetoric of other bishops who have made a cottage industry out of doom and gloom prophecies has to be faced. For too long we have all been watching this soap opera called Anglican leadership and wondering when the adults would come back into the room to make the kids play nice.

That may not happen unless we take some serious steps. What the diocese of Utah raised is an idea for just this kind of wake up call and action. Perhaps if we call off the party, some people will sober up. It may be disconcerting to many that we have decided not to have another Lambeth right away, but after all, when did we start to worship Lambeth anyway? Even more disconcerting would be the spectacle of global religious leaders playing political gotcha over issues that most Anglicans find pointless and diverting from the mission of the gospel...

So, what do you think? Shall we call off the party?

J.

Canterbury Speaks Out Against Violence

There are some dramatic headlines attached to news stories about comments made by the Archbishop of Canterbury in an interview that appears in Emel. Let's look at part of what he actually said. Then I'll offer some commentary, from the perspective of a veteran who enlisted during Viet Nam and a priest who believes it is the Church's duty to protect the innocent:

I ask him if America has lost the moral high ground since September 11th, and his answer is simple: “Yes.” There is no mitigation. He has obviously thought through what he feels the US should do now to recover, “A generous and intelligent programme of aid directed to the societies that have been ravaged; a check on the economic exploitation of defeated territories; a demilitarisation of their presence. All these things would help.”

He describes violence as “a quick discharge of frustration. It serves you. It does not serve the situation. Whenever people turn to violence what they do is temporarily release themselves from some sort of problem but they help no one else.” A long term critic of the war on Iraq, he feels that this perspective on violence also applies to Britain’s presence there. “A lot of the pressure around the invasion of Iraq was ‘We’ve got to do something! Then we’ll feel better.’ That’s very dangerous.”

In a country where faith and politics are essentially divided, in Alastair Campbell’s infamous words, “we don’t do God”, the Archbishop does feel he has a role to play within the political arena. On the Iraq war he wants to “keep before government and others the great question of how you can actually contribute to a responsible civil society in a context where you’ve undermined most of the foundations on which that society can be built”...

...Christian Zionists support the return of Jews to Israel because they believe the second coming of Jesus will not occur until all Jews are in Israel. The Archbishop is scathing, accusing them of being connected to “the chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity.”

In today’s world it is easy to see why people would believe such an idea; America seems so intrinsically involved in everything. The Archbishop recognises that: “We have only one global hegemonic power at the moment.” But, he propounds, “It is not accumulating territory; it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That’s not working.” Far from seeing this positively, he describes it as “the worst of all worlds,” saying, “it is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly that’s what the British Empire did – in India for example. It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put things back together –Iraq for example”...

Has America lost the moral high ground? The Bush administration pushed us into an invasion of Iraq four years ago based on false intelligence. Since then, over 70,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. The killing continues, even though we have yet to be given an honest answer as to why we are even there. Here is a brief glimpse of what is going on in Iraq right now:

The American military has expressed regret “that civilians are hurt or killed while coalition forces search to rid Iraq of terrorism,” after the 11 October killing of 15 women (one pregnant) and children in an air raid near lake Thar Thar. The civilian death toll by US fire was 96 in October, with 23 children among them, while in September US forces and contractors killed 108 Iraqi civilians, including 7 children. In August US troops killed 103 civilians, 16 of them children, and in July they killed 196. In fact, during the last five months US forces in Iraq have killed over 600 Iraqi civilians. Regrettably, as always...

There is little question that this invasion will be remembered as one of the ugliest chapters of American history. Of course we have lost the moral high ground. And the only way I can see to regain it is to stop the killing, condemn the actions of this President, and hold him accountable for what could be defined as war crimes.

The arrogance of this administration is quite evident in the invasion of Iraq. George Bush has claimed that he believes himself to be called by God to launch this bloody adventure. He personifies the "chosen nation myth" quite well. We ignore global voices, convinced that it is our destiny to be God's agents to those we judge to deserve death. We appoint leaders of our troops who encourage them to kill in the name of Jesus. And then we act indignant when the "collateral damage" count of civilian deaths rises to over 70,000, and our morality is questioned. It is difficult to believe that anyone could consider such consequences of this invasion to be "God's purpose for humanity."

The Archbishop said that this is "the worst of all worlds," as in the worst case scenario. He is absolutely right. As far as suggesting that the way the British Empire "administered and normalized" India is a better example, I'd personally have to disagree. There was plenty of bloodshed involved in that adventure as well. The comparison is not terribly helpful. The British Empire has plenty of its own ugly chapters.

As Christians, it is most definitely our place to speak out against such violence. This has nothing to do with politics. It is about killing innocent people. If Christians cannot stand against this horrible waste of human lives, I fail to see the point of continuing to claim to be followers of Jesus Christ.

I disagree with Dr. Williams on many things. But in this case, I must applaud his willingness to speak out against this unnecessary bloodshed.

J.

Order and Chaos

MadPriest offers us an insightful quote from Mary Clara. Here's how it begins:

This is the first time it has been made completely clear to me that the schismatics' obsession with same-sex love is not about personal morality at all. It has to do with a perceived threat to cosmic order. In their view, the very 'nature of reality' is being profaned and violated by any sexual act other than one between fertile heterosexuals bent on procreation. The 'tear in the fabric of the Anglican Communion' actually represents for them a rending of the fabric of the universe.

In a certain sense I can understand this. I do believe that in the shape of our lives, even in small everyday acts, we can and should show respect for cosmic order and participate in God's plan as we understand it. Our relationships are symbolic, and by the way we tend them we can either contribute to chaos or help bring about the flourishing of God's reign...

Mary Clara goes on to make a very good point. Do go read the whole thing. However, although I agree in principle with what she has to say, the above paragraphs got me to spinning in a slightly different direction. A recent brief conversation with klady took me even further afield from Mary Clara's original point.

"...rending the fabric of the universe..." I think that is the phrase that got my attention. Let's talk about this "rending." Specifically, let's talk about the tension between "order" and "chaos" that I suspect is at the root of this "rending."

I think that chaos has gotten a bad reputation throughout history. Of course "order" is the obvious preference, as it represents what we "know." And by that knowledge, we feel we have some control over things. Chaos represents the unknown, and thus is the source of much fear, as we feel powerless to have any control over it.

I want to suggest that it is from chaos that springs all creativity, while order tends to routinize all things, and thus has a greater potential for stifling, if not killing, the spirit.

That's not quite right, of course, but it is a sufficient summary of my point, and counter-intuitive enough to get your atttention.

The truth is that creativity is born from the tension between order and chaos. My point is that chaos is not the enemy, but an integral part of the creative process.

To explain further, I have to delve into the realm of science, which is by no means my area of expertise. I hope those who are more scientifically inclined will correct my errors.

"Chaos Theory" is the term for the apparent lack of order in a system that would be expected to obey particular laws or rules. Probably the best known example of this is the "butterfly effect," introduced by Edward Lorenz in a paper he entitled ""Predictability: Does the Flap of a Butterfly's Wings in Brazil set off a Tornado in Texas?" Lorenz stumbled across this concept while making weather predictions in which he simulated certain factors by inserting numbers from previous predictions. But he rounded off the numbers by three decimal points, while the computer based its forcasts on six decimal points. The forcasts were dramatically different from what they should have been. That miniscule change caused dramatically different results.

We think of chaos as randomness and a complete lack of order. What chaos theory suggests is that this is only apparent randomness, resulting from the complex interactions of many systems. In other words, the appearance of chaos is formed by our lack of knowledge of these interactions. There seems to be some order within chaos, as well as some chaos within order. The tension between order and chaos is not an "either/or" kind of relationship.

This brings us to Complexity Theory, which suggests that there is a transitional phase between order and chaos, in which the system is not rigid, yet not random either. An example might be the process of ice becoming water and then steam. Order moves to complexity which moves to chaos. It is this transitional stage between order and chaos where creation can occur. Or, to put it another way, in terms of human thought, it is when we let go of enough of our ordered thought to embrace chaos, but not enough that we have no foundation for thinking, that we can draw from the chaos a new thought.

There are some parallels with these ideas and how our human psyche functions. "Order" represents our conscious selves. "Chaos" represents the unconscious. Fearing our inability to properly control the unconscious inclines us to repress it. Once again, our automatic perception is that order is good and chaos is bad. But the more we repress the unconscious, the more we find ourselves on the verge of slipping into total chaos. It is through integration, through slowly bringing the unconscious into the light, that we discover our own creativity, and so become a complete person, no longer living in fear of our "dark side."

And then there are those "unexpected" daily occurances that disrupt our orderly lives. This is also an example of living in the tenion between order and chaos. There is an accident on the Parkway making us late for an appointment. An ill child forces us to cancel our evening plans. Such apparently random chaos is usually seen as always a negative thing. But isn't it as we deal with these unexpected situations that we expand our understanding not only of the world, but of ourselves? These are opportunities to dip into the that place of complexity between order and chaos and draw from it a new way forward.

I've wandered far enough, I suspect. So lets bring this all home again. Our Anglican tradition is often considered quite rigid when it comes to liturgy, confining ourselves to the time tested forms of worship contained within the Book of Common Prayer. However, we are also often accused of being too "fuzzy" when it comes to some of our responses to developments in this world. We live in the tension between order and chaos.

I think our current unpleasantness is, to some degree, a result of this tension. From the complexity of human systems (relationships), we have drawn out something new, and are attempting to give it form and order. There are those who champion order, and demand that all matters Anglican take on a rigid form. And there are those who champion chaos, refusing to acknowledge the authority of any restrictions. Of course, neither of these extremes will allow us to integrate a new understanding into our consciousness. It is out of the struggle between these two forces that something new is emerging. And for that, as painful as it may seem right now, I think we can be thankful.

The fabric of the universe is being rent asunder. Good. Because that fabric is made of the finite thoughts of limited beings, fashioned into a curtain to hide from us the Creator, whose glory will consume us if revealed all at once. We need the curtain, our very human reason, to protect us from being consumed. But I think sometimes it is beneficial for a corner of it to be torn away, so that we can glimpse the Creator, and so be reminded of who we are; finite beings straddling order and chaos, which are both a part of the creative process of a power greater than ourselves.

Holy art Thou, Lord of the Universe
Holy art Thou, whom nature hath not formed
Holy art Thou, the vast and mighty One
Lord of the light and the darkness.

J.

Introducing a New Chat Room

The folks from the Episcopal/Anglican MSN Group have opened a chat room. You can find it here. I've also added a link on the sidebar.

I've known some of the members of this group for a few years. They're good folks. And this particular chat format is user friendly. No complicated registration or passwords. Simple design for the room. And it is hosted, meaning troublesome visitors will be dealt with by someone else, so you can relax and just talk.

If you're interested in talking with each other in real time, this might be a feature that you'll enjoy. Go check it out.

J.

Primates and ACC Respond to the House of Bishops' Statement

In September, the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church issued a statement in response to the recommendations made by the Primates in the Dar es Salaam Communique.

The Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion considered the House of Bishops' statement, and then issued their own report. The JSC found that the Episcopal Church had fulfilled the request for clarity made by the Primates.

Rowan Williams received the report of the JSC, and asked for responses from the 38 Primates and the 73 members of the Anglican Consultative Council. They were given one month to make their response. A summary of the responses from the Primates and the ACC has now been released. It can be found here. If you want to see the graphs, you may have to open the pdf file, found here.

The responses are not identified by Province. The specific comments that are quoted are primarily from those who disagree with the report of the JSC. That is no surprise, as those who felt the Bishops had responded sufficiently to the Primates wouldn't have much else to say except "Agree." But, if you are going to challenge the findings of the JSC, the expectation would be that you would provide an explanation for such a challenge.

By all means do read all 11 pages of this summary. But without knowing who said what, I'm not sure how helpful the document really is. However, the categorization of the numbers is certainly interesting. Here's the breakdown:

Responses from the Primates to the JSC Report (38 total):

12 - Agree
10 - Disagree
3 - Mixed Response
1 - Will Respond Later
12 - No Response

Responses from the Anglican Consultative Council to the JSC Report (73 total):

13 - Agree
2 - Disagree
2 - Mixed response
8 - JSC Member
48 - No Response

The ten Primates who disagreed were identified as being part of the "Global South."

I think the most significant thing to be seen from these numbers is that almost one third of the Primates and almost two thirds of the ACC members did not respond! Out of 111 requested responses, Canterbury received 51; less than half.

This is difficult to even imagine. The Archbishop of Canterbury made this request. They were given thirty days to accomplish this simple task. We might expect one or two excuses due to extenuating circumstances. But for over half of the respondents to simply ignore Canterbury's request is quite troubling.

Perhaps apathy has begun to set in regarding these matters? Or maybe we have placed incompetent people in these positions? Or could this be a signal that the authority of Canterbury is even weaker than we even imagined?

I suspect that the first speculation will probably be proven to be the most accurate. The members of the Communion are getting weary of all these meetings, reports, threats and counter-threats. All this fighting has become a distraction from our mission; to restore all people to unity with God and each other in Christ. The Communion has had enough. They want to move on.

So, for what it's worth, there's the summary. Based on that information, Abp. Williams will make a final statement on this matter in his annual Advent letter. And that will be the end of the Dar es Salaam recommendations.

Maybe the denouement of this drama has finally commenced.

Thanks be to God.

J.

Giving Thanks

Come, ye thankful people, come, raise the song of harvest home;
All is safely gathered in, ere the winter storms begin.
God our Maker doth provide for our wants to be supplied;
Come to God's own temple, come, raise the song of harvest home.

Let us pray:

Almighty and gracious Father, we give you thanks for the fruits of the earth in their season and for the labors of those who harvest them. Make us, we pray, faithful stewards of your great bounty, for the provision of our necessities and
the relief of all who are in need, to the glory of your Name; through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and for ever. Amen.

A Litany of Thanksgiving

Let us give thanks to God our Father for all his gifts so freely bestowed upon us.

For the beauty and wonder of your creation, in earth and sky and sea.
We thank you, Lord.

For all that is gracious in the lives of men and women, revealing the image of Christ,
We thank you, Lord.

For our daily food and drink, our homes and families, and our friends,
We thank you, Lord.

For minds to think, and hearts to love, and hands to serve,
We thank you, Lord.

For health and strength to work, and leisure to rest and play,
We thank you, Lord.

For the brave and courageous, who are patient in suffering and faithful in adversity,
We thank you, Lord.

For all valiant seekers after truth, liberty, and justice,
We thank you, Lord.

For the communion of saints, in all times and places,
We thank you, Lord.

Above all, we give you thanks for the great mercies and promises given to us in Christ Jesus our Lord;
To him be praise and glory, with you, O Father, and the Holy Spirit, now and for ever. Amen.

Count your blessings this day, and give thanks. And then commit yourselves to becoming a blessing to others.

How do you pass on a blessing? It can be a simple thing. For instance, go find someone who needs a hug and give them one. How difficult could that be?


Free Hugs Campaign

Happy Thanksgiving, folks.

J.

The Southern Cone's Operative in North America

The Southern Cone, lead by Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables, has decided to offer shelter to some of the disgruntled conservatives in North America. The leadership of the dioceses of San Joaquin, Fort Worth and Pittsburgh are anticipated to take them up on this offer. The latest development is that a Canadian renegade bishop has also decided to accept this offer. Bishop Michael Ingham of the diocese of New Westminster is not pleased:

...“This is a full-blown schism now within the Canadian church and it is a direct attack upon the catholicity of the church and the gospel of Jesus Christ,” said Bishop Ingham. “It is one thing to hold differing opinions as many Anglicans obviously do on matters of sexual ethics. It’s quite another thing to establish alternative ecclesial bodies, which is schism.”

He added: “I believe our church and certainly the diocese of New Westminster has bent over backwards to accommodate mutual respect and tolerance of genuinely held theological convictions. What we cannot tolerate is schism and the setting up of bodies that compete with one another within the same jurisdiction. As Jesus said, a house divided against itself cannot stand”...

So, what do we know about the Southern Cone, the latest player to step upon the stage of the ongoing Anglican drama?

We know that this is not the first time PB Venables has done something like this. He took Robinson Calvacanti, the deposed bishop of Recife, under his wing. Calvacanti is not listed as a bishop on any of the Anglican Communion sites. He did not recieve an invitation to Lambeth.

And we know that the face of the Southern Cone seen here in North America is usually that of Frank Lyons, Bishop of Bolivia.

So, who is Bp. Lyons? Watch the following video from January 2007, made while he was making a visitation to one of "his" churches in San Diego, and see for yourself:



Bp. Lyons speaks of the "active, growing" churches in the Global South. Is he including his own diocese, which appears to consist of four churches? If I recall, it had four churches three years ago. Exactly where is the growth?

Here's what the Bishop of San Diego had to say about Bp. Lyon's method of "growing" churches:

...Last week, in a statement about Lyons' upcoming visit, Mathes said he was “distressed” that the Anglican bishop is not abiding by a centuries-old tradition of honoring the authority of the local bishop.

Mathes also noted the disparity between the number of churches Lyons oversees in Bolivia and the United States. Lyons said yesterday he supervises 35 congregations in the United States and has five churches, including one that will open later this year, in Bolivia.

“Rather than growing the church in his mission field, he has inserted himself in the affairs of another part of the communion and exacerbated the conflict,” Mathes said in his statement. “I suspect his reasons are more driven by economics and ego rather than theology”...

Bp. Lyons makes the same old false accusations about the Episcopal Church that we've heard so many times before; "It is difficult for conservative folks who believe in the authority of scripture, who believe in the uniqueness of Jesus, who believe in the resurrection of Jesus, to get through any kind of process in the US..." I must imagine that he is speaking about the ordination process. So, to get ordained in the Episcopal Church, one must deny scripture, the Incarnation and the resurrection? Give me a break.

Most likely there's more than a little projection going on here. Bp. Lyons entered the ordination process in Washington DC, where he was a member of a parish he describes as "Charismatic." He admits to having problems with the diocesan leadership. Eventually, the diocese decided not to ordain him. Consequently, he now makes the above accusation.

And then in response to those bishops who are perturbed by his trespassing on their turf, he states that he "feels really bad that these bishops don't understand Anglicanism..." And Bp. Lyons does? Is this understanding derived from his time at a "slightly non-Anglican, fuzzy huggy Charismatic" church, or from his residency at the only seminary in the Episcopal Church that will not allow women to perform sacerdotal functions on their property? Misogynist Pentecostals are the model of Anglicanism now? We live in bizarre times.

Bp. Lyons tosses out the comment that "two thirds of the Primates are in impaired communion with the Episciopal Church." Oh really? Love to see that list. Last I heard, there were about half a dozen out of 38, and some of those are questionable.

Bp. Lyons claims to have picked up 35 churches in North America, and is on the prowl for more. Remember his face. If you see him, you will have to make up your own minds as to what is the appropriate response. Personally, I'll be calling 911 to have him arrested for trespassing.

J.

Episcopal Life Looks at the Blogs

From Episcopal Life:

They're like monks of old, scribing texts on Scripture and theology, prayer and meditation, church governance and liturgics -- topics that resonate with them and their experiences of faith in the current day.

They're bloggers -- writers of Internet weblogs ("blogs," for short) -- whose readers respond with comments for posting online.

Together they populate the "blogosphere," a communication environment that, spiritually speaking, includes content that comes as fresh air to some and rhetorical smog to others.

But an informal sampling of blogs shows that Episcopalians, for the most part, blog to build Christian community. Mainly, these blogs are virtual locations for gathering groups of people who love their church and express that love in diverse ways. A few writers may sow discord, yet most work to widen connections and collegiality that might otherwise remain untapped...

...Readers grow to trust a blogger's credibility based on the number of other bloggers producing worthwhile information who link to that blog, said Dave Kim, blogger and global sales intranet manager of Symantec Corporation, based in Cupertino, Calif. The more that other bloggers or trusted websites link to a blog, the more likely readers are to return there for information, he said, noting blog trust is similar to brand loyalty.

"Blogs in and of themselves are rarely reliable," Kim said in an interview conducted via online instant messaging. "They must have other sources — links to groups talking about the same issues. Over time, you grow to trust blogs for different reasons. Some group blogs you simply grow to rely on over time: i.e., reading Gizmodo.com for tech news"...

Jake's place got mentioned in the last line, and they got the link right. Thanks, Sean.

So, welcome to those visiting from Episcopal Life. Please make yourselves at home. And don't leave without checking out the comments. That's probably the most unique thing about Jake's place...we get lots of comments. The conversations which naturally unfold here are the heart of this community.

Feel free to join in the conversation. You don't have to sign up for anything, and can use whatever name fits your fancy at the moment. I promise we won't bite (unless you bite first...then watch out!).

J.

Abp. Tutu: "Anglicans Homophobic"

Susan Russell points us to an article from the BBC:

..."Our world is facing problems - poverty, HIV and Aids - a devastating pandemic, and conflict," said Archbishop Tutu, 76.

"God must be weeping looking at some of the atrocities that we commit against one another.

"In the face of all of that, our Church, especially the Anglican Church, at this time is almost obsessed with questions of human sexuality."

Criticising Dr Williams, he said: "Why doesn't he demonstrate a particular attribute of God's which is that God is a welcoming God"...

...He said the Anglican Church had seemed "extraordinarily homophobic" in its handling of the issue, and that he had felt "saddened" and "ashamed" of his church at the time.

Asked if he still felt ashamed, he said: "If we are going to not welcome or invite people because of sexual orientation, yes.

"If God, as they say, is homophobic, I wouldn't worship that God"...

...In the interview, Archbishop Tutu also rebuked religious conservatives who said homosexuality was a choice.

"It is a perversion if you say to me that a person chooses to be homosexual.

"You must be crazy to choose a way of life that exposes you to a kind of hatred.

"It's like saying you choose to be black in a race-infected society."

Encouraging words from a great man.

He doesn't just talk about being inclusive, by the way. For instance, consider that he allowed himself to be included in a photo with an eccentric and sometimes heretical rabble rouser.

J.

Canterbury's Solution: A Lambeth Purge

From the Telegraph:

The Archbishop of Canterbury is preparing to target individual bishops whose pro-gay policies threaten to derail his efforts to avert schism, The Daily Telegraph has learnt.

In a high-risk strategy, Dr Rowan Williams may even snub them by withdrawing their invitations to next year's Lambeth Conference.

He has told friends he will challenge any bishop he believes is coming to the conference with an agenda "very much at odds" with his attempts to maintain unity in the worldwide Church...

...Dr Williams has been under great pressure from conservatives to punish the entire American Episcopal Church for bringing the worldwide Church to the brink of schism.

But aides to the Archbishop hope his new strategy of focusing on individuals rather than national Churches may appease conservatives who are threatening a damaging boycott of the conference.

Insiders point out, however, that Dr Williams could also target hardliners if he believes they are breaching guidelines against bishops intervening in foreign dioceses, as some Africans have done.

If he decides to take the drastic step of withdrawing the invitation to bishops on either the liberal or conservative wing, he will risk a barrage of criticism and could provoke further damaging boycotts.

But the Archbishop can remind Church leaders that he allowed for the eventuality when he issued the invitations, making clear in an accompanying letter that he was reserving the right to withdraw them in extraordinary circumstances.

I am so tempted to return to the call for a boycott. One of our bishops has already been excluded. How many more must be singled out by Canterbury as sacrifices to the extremists before the entire House of Bishops decide to stand in solidarity with them?

With B033 and the latest bishops' statement, we have gone further than many think we should have to appease those who desire to rid the Church of those who hold different opinions from themselves. Clearly our bishops have made statements that would never have been agreed to by our senior house.

It is getting to the point that I wonder if any price is too high for us to be expected to pay in order to send our bishops to a tea party with Dr. Williams.

If one of our dioceses is not represented at Lambeth, none of them should be, it seems to me.

J.