The House of Bishops: An Institutional Challenge

Let's talk about Bishops for awhile. Let's start by considering a couple of quotes. First, from our discussion of authorityin a post-modern world:

...The time of prince bishops and cardinal rectors has come and gone. Any authority as leaders they continue to express is granted to them, not by the nature of their office, but by the authority of the gathered community. And, if they fail to respond to the needs of the community, alternative authorities will be sought out...

Then there is an essay by Tobias entitled The Coinherent Bishop. Here's part of it:

...The bishop acting outside or apart from the church as an episcopus vagans is like an electric fan unplugged from its source of power. Its blades may show some signs of movement in a strong wind, but are of no effect in actually generating a breeze. And the same is true of any minister, ordered or lay, who amputated from the body of fellow-believers attempts still to function as an organ of the body.

We are, in the long run, all in this together. Lone wolves go hungry. And shepherds are nothing without their sheep.

Now, before saying any more, it is time for some disclaimers.

Most Bishops that I have known would probably admit, if pushed, that they are fully aware that their authority comes from the people. There a many highly competent and gifted leaders within the House of Bishops. Some I would even call friends. Others have been there for me as my pastor during very difficult times in my life. A few have even served as the voice that called me back when I wandered too far off the path.

I am very comfortable being "a person under the authority" of a Bishop. In some ways, I find it liberating. I am free to function as a conduit of grace, as the Bishop's representative, knowing that there is someone to whom I am accountable, and one with the authority to tell me "no," even at those times when I hadn't yet sought permission.

Having said that, there are also a few other things we may need to admit regarding our Bishops. I was at a conference last year at which one brave soul made a very interesting observation. If we consider the typical "career path" of most Bishops, they were a curate, then the vicar or rector of a small church, then rector of a large church, and then were elected Bishop. Along the way, there is no doubt that they refined many of their gifts. But rarely did they have the opportunity to create anything "new." So, when someone comes up with a "new" or "innovative" idea, especially one that might have some impact on the budget, some Bishops get nervous. To take that a step further, if you mention "church planting," you can bet you'll set off a few alarm bells. You see, unfortunately, planting new churches has acquired a big price tag. It doesn't require one, but that's what the "experts" have given it.

Beyond the expected aversion to "innovation," we also have the constant "authority" pendelum swing between the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies at General Convention. The latest swing might be seen in the reaction to the way B033 was passed at GC2006. As you might recall, the actions of the House of Bishops at that Convention gave rise to a new crisis of trust.

Sensing this swing, and concerned about further loss of their authority, at GC2009 there was a motion by the youngest member of the House of Bishops, and supported by a few other Bishops, to kill a somewhat controversial resolution, and replace it with a "pastoral letter" from the Bishops. Thankfully, some of the more reasonable minds present thwarted the attempt, resulting in the passing of the piece of legislation.

So, there's just a couple of considerations regarding our Bishops for you to chew on.

Based on the above, and your own experiences, here is the question that I want you to ponder:

In your experience, overall, are Bishops a blessing or a bane?

Be kind. We do have a few folks wearing purple shirts who drop in once in awhile.

J.

Three Shifts

In the previous post that wandered around the issue of "authority," I spoke about "networks," which is but one shift in the way humans are perceiving reality today. I now want to add two more shifts that I think the Church must recognize, if we are to effectively continue our mission. These three shifts are:

1. Networks - relationships are formed through complex webs of networks, often formed around leisure activities, family and friendships. Geography often plays a minor role. Network societies can both connect and fragment, as well as include and exclude.

2. Mobility - as the "local" gives way to the "global" perspective, new options regarding where we put down roots have opened up. In some cases, the concept of "roots" (home) has been completely redefined, with "place" being given a lower priority. This can provide more freedom and opportunity, but also undermines long term commitments. It is also cause for some tensions between those who have the means to be more mobile, and those who feel "stuck" in a particular place.

3. Consumer societies - previous generations found their identity in what they produced, but we now find our identity in what we consume. The core value of society has moved from ‘progress’ to ‘choice.’ We are moving towards a “personalized scale" in which ”it must fit me exactly” is an essential value. Among other things, this will affect the way people evaluate truth claims. “Truth” will be treated as a commodity. Consumer societies provide more choices, while also reinforcing the illusion of individualism.

For further reading:
Mission-Shaped Church
(the entire book, from which some of the above content was drawn, can be found in pdf format here)

The Great Emergence
(some videos of Phyllis Tickle speaking about the content of this book and a study guide can be found here)

Next: Some specific institutional challenges.

J.

Where is the Authority?

At a recent event at Seabury-Western. I was asked to address the following question:

What does society's shift from hierarchy to network theory mean for our understanding of authority, scripture and the institutional church?

As a simple explanation of "network theory," think of the way the internet has changed our society. Among other implications, consider the ways that we group ourselves today. Communities, or a sense of community, are now almost completely disconnected from geography. Instead, in today's society. people are grouped along the lines of the following priorities:

1. Hobbies (or special interests, as in "the Anglican Wars")
2. Family
3. Work colleagues

Geography is no longer the primary basis for community. People are now defining communities through leisure activities, work and friendships.

This has an impact on a number of ways in which we have traditionally understood "church." To begin, I want to talk about how this shift has caused us to reconsider our understanding of "authority."

The term "authority," as traditionally used in Christian circles, is derived from the Greek concept of "exousia," which is consistently translated into English as "authority." However, the Greek concept of authority is far more complex in comparison to our normal understanding of the term. We tend to think of "authority" as a tool of domination. But Jesus was clear that is not what he meant; "The Gentiles lord their authority (kata-exousia) over one another, but not so with you!"

If you look at the different ways the term "exousia" is used in scripture, it does indeed sometimes refer to power, strength and control, but also competency, mastery, liberty and freedom. In other words, the one with "exousia" is the one who has "the freedom to act." Jesus, as the Son of God, speaks and acts with authority. As we faithfully follow him, we also receive, to a more limited degree, this same "freedom to act."

So, who has the authority? Who has the freedom to act? Well, in a network society, that depends. If the traditional persons who are considered to have authority refuse to act, the network will function temporarily in its place.

An example of how this works can be seen in my previous story, The Boys of Hall. The crisis was the unexpected death of a member of our cottage in reform school. The institution (the traditional authority) did not act. No memorial service, counseling sessions, etc. were offered. Consequently, the boys took on the limited authority that they had and organized their own memorial service.

As the person that they identified as having the most experience with the bible and Christian prayer, I was asked to lead this service. Note that the authority to function in such a capacity was very limited. It ended when the memorial service we held in the kitchen of Hall Cottage ended. I then returned to the role of just another throw-away kid who had broken various laws of the land, and so had been placed in that institution. After we had grieved the loss of one of our own, I returned to the role of just another of many boys of Hall.

I think such an understanding of "authority" might be helpful for the Church today. If the "institution," for whatever reason, is unable to respond appropriately to the crisis, the local community will respond anyway, with or without the blessing of the institution.

Those appointed to lead this response may be drawn from the ranks of the ordained clergy. But, then again, the one granted that particular authority may just be a fifteen year old convicted car thief and drug addict.

Being too deeply identified with the institution, especially if it is an incompetent institution, is not always a plus. In a network society, the needs will be met, even if it means traveling outside the boundaries of traditional authority structures.

This is not simply my opinion, by the way. This is how things are unfolding in this postmodern world. The time of prince bishops and cardinal rectors has come and gone. Any authority as leaders they continue to express is granted to them, not by the nature of their office, but by the authority of the gathered community. And, if they fail to respond to the needs of the community, alternative authorities will be sought out.

Your thoughts?

J.

Mission and Ministry in the Great Emergence

This program is being offered by Seabury-Western Theological Seminary next week. It is based on Phyllis Tickle's book The Great Emergence.

Phyllis will be giving the keynote address on Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning. Among the other presenters will be Nadia Bolz-Weber, Winnie Varghese, John Denson and Susan Harlow. I'll be facilitating the Thursday morning seminar.

So, if you can arrange a trip on short notice, come join us. Or, if you're in the Chicago area and just want to get together for a cup of coffee, drop me an email.

J.

The Anglican Dominionists

What follows is a review of some of the events within the Anglican Communion over the last decade. The information contained within this summary can be supported by numerous other websites. Rather than focus on those other sources, I'm going to just tell the story, and then add a number of links at the end for further reading. If you request more information about a particular item, I'll be happy to point you to a source.

My main premise is that the current "schism" within The Episcopal Church is primarily being led by "Dominionists," which is a subset of Christians who are working to take over every aspect of common life in the United States. They want to replace the Constitution with biblical law. Dominionists are often referred to in the media as the "Religious Right," and have called themselves The Moral Majority, The Christian Coalition, and various other titles.

Anglicans are too reasonable for such unusual ideas to ever get a strong foothold within our tradition. However, these ideas have found their way in, primarily through the Americian Anglican Council (AAC), which became The Anglican Communion Network (ACN), which became the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). The leadership rosters of all three of these groups contains a very similar list of names. Same players, same game. In this case, I am suggesting that the game was not simply disagreement with the majority of Episcopalians regarding the role of women, gays and lesbians within the Church, but was actually far more ambitious: the replacement of The Episcopal Church with their own brand of extremist Anglicanism. This, of course, was simply doing their small part to further the overall plan by the Religious Right; to replace all leaders, secular and religious, with those who are willing to make biblical law the law of the land.

Most Dominionists, especially Anglican Dominionists, will never publically admit to their ultimate goal of making the United States into a theocracy. Such matters are discussed only when they are alone with their own kind. This makes it rather difficult to track such troubling ideas. However, it does not make it impossible.

The most extreme form of Dominionism is "Christian Reconstructionism," which strives to incorporate all 613 laws from the biblical code into secular law. That would include capital punishment for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, and sorcery. R.J. Rushdoony, author of The Institutes of Biblical Law, is credited as the founder of this particular sect.

One of Rushdoony's most devout followers was Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., a reclusive millionaire from California. Ahmanson served on the Board of Rushdoony's Chalcedon Institute for 23 years, and was at his bedside when he died.

Howard Ahmanson, and his wife Roberta, became members of St. James Episcopal Church in Newport Beach, California. The rector of that parish was Canon David Anderson.

In 1995, the American Anglican Council was formed, in response to certain developments within The Episcopal Church. It was funded primarily through a group of large donors, of which Ahmanson was one. Ahmanson's support was considered so important to the AAC that there was some discussion about including his name in the letterhead of their stationary. Internal memos revealed that the leadership of the AAC were willing to do almost anything to keep Ahmanson on board. Soon after that, Ahmanson's rector, David Anderson, became President and CEO of the AAC, a postion he still holds today.

The AAC moved into an office in Washingtom DC with another organization, the Institute on Religion and Democracy. Dianne Knippers, President of the IRD, was the original treasurer for the AAC. Roberta Ahmanson served on the board of the IRD.

The IRD has a long history of anti-communist activity, especially during the Reagan era. At one point, the rhetoric from Knippers resulted in the erroneous identification of a group of missionaries in Nicaragua as being a communist front. Their clinics became targets for terrorists.

The primary goal of the IRD is to replace the leadership of the mainline churches with their own conservative leaders. A reading of some of their material makes it clear that they continue to be active players in the Religious Right, and are very clearly of the Dominionist mindset.

Now that the IRD and the AAC were, for all intents and purposes, one organization (sharing board members, wealthy donors and the same mailing address) they began to focus on tearing down The Episcopal Church. After this alliance was formed, one of their early moves was to launch a smear campaign against Gene Robinson, who had just been elected as bishop of New Hampshire. In 2003, Ahmanson gave the IRD funds for this campaign, which was launched by Fred Barnes, a member of the IRD's board. Robinson received the necessary consents in spite of the IRD's efforts.

Such techniques were used against the leadership of the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches as well. Eventually, the outrage expressed towards the IRD by a number of people within the mainline denominations was cause for the AAC to distance themselves from the organization. They set up their own office in Atlanta. It is also worth noting that Ephraim Radner, affiliated with the Anglican Communion Institute, also resigned from his seat on the IRD board, which he had occupied for many years.

Howard Ahmanson has become even more reclusive, but as recently as June of 2008 showed up at GAFCON, an international group of Anglicans supportive of the efforts to destroy TEC and replace it with their own entity. It is also worth noting that Ahmanson was one of the major contributers towards the effort to pass Proposition 8 in California.

The IRD continues to attempt to have an impact within TEC, with limited success.

The story continues, but that's enough for now.

Here's a few links for further reading:

The Spread of Theocracy

Following the Money

Theocracy Watch

Avenging Angel of the Religious Right

The Mystery Man Behind Proposition 8

IRD and the CEPAD Affair

President of IRD Should Resign

Fox News, Falls Church and the IRD

That should keep you busy for awhile.

J.

UPDATE: Lifting the Rock notes that the keynote speaker for the 2009 ACNA Clergy and Spouse Retreat is none other than Wellington Boone, a well known Dominionist. Imagine that.

A Review?

Perhaps I have taken it for granted that those who visit here are familiar with the background of the current "Anglican Wars." Do we need to review some of the basics?

For instance, is everyone aware of the difference between a "conservative" and an "extreme conservative"? If you are not, then, for a quick review, I recommend you read this post from back in 2006; Don't Call Them Conservatives.

My assertion is that those who claim to be Anglicans while they do everything they can to bury The Episcopal Church are an extension of the radical Religious Right. They are very dangerous people. I can once again connect the dots for you, if you would like.

Why might such a series be of value? Because I think I bring a rather unusual perspective to the matter. You see, besides being a former drug addict and car thief, once upon a time I was also an active member of the extreme religious right.

I must confess to the following:

1. When I returned to Christianity, it was of the Pentecostal variety. The supernatural manifestations trumped everything else. A literal reading of the bible came along with that.
2. As one example of this, I once burned a number of my books, because I consider them "occult," and so a danger to my family.
3. I picketed abortion clinics more than once.
4. I believed we were living in the end times. I kept a "survivial kit" ready in the basement, which including many firearms and ammunition.
5. I once voted for Ronald Reagan (believe it or not, that is the most difficult confession to make on this list!).

That gives you an idea of the strange world in which I returned to my faith. I had not moved far from those rather extreme positions by the time my Bishop sent me to Nashotah House. As a matter of fact, my first sermon after entering seminary at my home parish was a point by point refutation of some statement made by Bp. Spong. I even handed out brochures for Episcopalians United (an extremists group, rooted in John Howe's parish in Truro, VA) at the end of the service.

What made me question these extreme postions? Primarily two factors, revealed to me during my time at Nashotah House. I received an excellent theological education (thank you Jim Griffiss, Joe Hunt, David Ruppe and David Schlaeffer), and was able to witness first hand the unhealthy level of anger being manifested by the other extremists at the House.

That was just the beginning, of course. Over the last 25 years, I have continued to learn and to grow.

I am making this confession so that you will know the reason why I believe that I am somewhat uniquely qualified to connect the dots between these so-called Anglicans and the extreme religious right, who are currently shouting down women in wheelchairs at town hall meetings and ready to grant Sarah Palin sainthood. It is because I've been there. It takes one to know one, so to speak.

So, anyone interested in such a review?

J.

The Right Not to Tolerate the Intolerant

Compliments of Dave Tepper:

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
—Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies".

Thanks, Dave.

J.

UPDATE: Apparently, some of the more "intolerant" Anglicans elsewhere are unaware of the work of Karl Popper, considered one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. They have lifted the above quote, posted it on their site, and are having great fun using it for target practice.

In an effort to educate the intolerant, here is the entirety of Popper's Paradox of Tolerance:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies, as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Extremists Demand a "War Chief"

There has been some suggestion from a few folks that Episcopalians need to calm down and play nice. I have no doubt that these sentiments are well intentioned. However, I continue to believe that they are misguided. We cannot simply ignore those who lie, steal and threaten violence against members of the Episcopal Church. That would simply be unethical.

Let me give you an example: If I was walking down the street, and saw someone being beaten and robbed, what would be my moral obligation? Hopefully we can all agree that ignoring the attack would not be an option. We would have to do whatever we could do to stop the violence.

There are parallels with that scenario and what is unfolding within the Anglican Communion. There are leaders within the Communion who have threatened and engaged in acts of violence against those with whom they disagree, in the attempt to gain personal power for themselves.

One would think that the actions of Peter Akinola would be sufficient evidence to suggest that the danger of violence is very real in some parts of the Anglican Communion. What is even more alarming is that to date, no one in a leadership position within the Anglican Communion has condemned Akinola's violence. In fact, he has been allowed to establish a satellite in the United States. How anyone claiming to be a follower of Jesus Christ could align themselves with such a disturbed leader is beyond my comprehension.

Did Akinola need to export his violence to the shores of North America? Not really. Threats of violence and the language of war have always been an integral element in the strategy of a handful of extremists in the US who have been plotting to destroy the Episcopal Church long before Akinola strode onto the stage. As a matter of fact, there is evidence that suggests that it was North American extremists who ushered Akinola onto that global stage, for their own nefarious purposes.

The North American extremists recognize that the tactics that work in Nigeria will not work so well in the US, so their violent intentions are normally carefully veiled within secret memos and closed meetings. But, every once in awhile, they slip out.

For instance, consider this 2003 memo, in which Bishops supporting the AAC/Network/ACNA (same group, different names) "commit to the guerrilla warfare of the next year." You can read more about the early plots of this guerrilla group to stamp out TEC here.

In case you might imagine that such examples of "war" language are just a bit of colorful allegory, let me suggest you take a look at this thread of comments from a notorious testosterone-driven website that claims to be Anglican. They are proud of the fact that they've got guns, and know how to use them. Challenges to their most unChristian threats are met with silence. To this day, that unfortunate thread remains up for all the world to see. Apparently, they honestly believe that such blatant attempts at intimidation actually help their cause. And, judging from the reactions of some Anglicans, which basically involves sticking their heads in the sand, perhaps they do.

More recently, it was almost humorous to hear this "slip of the tongue" by the leader of the American Anglican Council (more about that group of guerrillas later):

...Fr. Ashey compared the AAC to the Special Forces of the U.S. military.

“Like Special Forces, we go behind the scenes and we blow up things,” he said, adding quickly that what the AAC blows up is principalities and powers...

Oh, I bet he added that second part quite quickly, once the shock in the eyes of some of the reporters present registered.

This isn't the first time the AAC has proudly described themselves using war language. Back in 2005, David Anderson, leader of the AAC at that time, described his organization this way:

...We consult with a large number of our constituency on a variety of issues including assistance with legal, strategic and communications issues. This includes some covert activity! One of the major problems we face in the AAC is that a large portion of what we do is under the radar or behind the curtain...

We might need to refresh our memories regarding the history of this particular "covert operative". You have to understand David Anderson to understand the AAC, as for many years we could say he was the AAC.

Before David "I like a good fight" Anderson jumped to Nigeria, he was the rector of St. James, Newport Beach, which is the parish who has asked for their case to be heard by the Supreme Court. David then launched the American Anglican Council, partially bankrolled by Howard Ahmanson, a former parishioner and previous disciple of the infamous Rushdoony. You may recall that Rushdoony was the grandfather of the Dominionists, who advocated for, among other things, capital punishment for all gays and lesbians.

Anderson set himself up in the offices of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, where he continued to build his reputation as "that angry guy" among most Anglicans. He was rewarded for his lack of self control by being issued a mitre by Abp. Peter Akinola of Nigeria. Birds of a feather and all that.

The mitre has not seemed to tame David at all. His violent rhetoric continues:

...What do these days in the Anglican World Communion call for, a Peace Chief or a War Chief? I would argue that this present time requires a War Chief for the defense of the Gospel and the Anglican Communion. Those Anglicans who are proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ are beset on several sides by those who hate the true Gospel: humanism and materialism attack from one side, militant Islam from another, and heretical distortions of the Christian message from still another. The church needs leaders who correctly perceive the clear and present danger, have a workable vision of how to go forward in this crisis, and the energy, willingness and focus to actually lead. Without this leadership, the Communion will move into chaos and the advantage will be ceded to those who would reshape the Gospel and the discipline of the historic faith...

Sure sounds like yet another declaration of war to me. Unfortunately, it seems that the justifications for such warfare are rooted in a bad case of paranoia and a penchant for making false accusations. Do check out Susan Russell's analysis of David's letter. Mark Harris offers some good insights as well.

And by the way, as Mark points out, take care not to be hoodwinked by some of the other covert operatives of this war party. They like having lots of different names. This group actually thinks that some will believe them to be "moderate" conservatives. The evidence suggests otherwise. Jim Naughton provides some good commentary on the latest ACI statement here.

So, you are witnessing a beating and robbery taking place. What will you do? Ignore it? Or do whatever you can do to stop it?

J.

The Train Won't Stop Going

It appears that a few Episcopal bishops are visiting Canterbury. The speculation is that this meeting is to discuss the "two track" model of Anglicanism, which seems to have been the preferred compromise of Canterbury for the last few years.

My response is, so what? If The Episcopal Church is to be relegated to the category of second class citizens, so be it. And, if these bishops think it is so darn important for them to sign some covenant, then let them sign it.

We've been talking about "making a sacrifice" for the sake of the Gospel for quite awhile now. In the past, it was a small group within the Church that was being asked to make that sacrifice. Now we are faced with the possibility that we all will have to participate in such a sacrifice. Not such a bad thing, it seems to me.

However, if this is a ploy by the ACNA, CANA, etc. folks to get some kind of official recognition, then it matters to me, a little bit. Those who lie and steal in an attempt to gain personal power for themselves need to be held accountable.

On the other hand, do I want to be part of a Communion that would officially recognize such scoundrels? I don't think so.

In the end, it's all an academic exercize anyway. As much as my Anglo-Catholic trained intellect hates to admit it, the reality is that in this post modern world, hierarchies are usually more of a bane than a blessing. Truth is known through relationships, and those relationships grow out of local communities. Those from on high who desire to "lord their authority" over such communities are quickly becoming irrelevant.

So, let those who desire to assign our train to this track or the other get on with it. Such bureaucratic decisions are not likely to cause us to stop proclaiming the radically inclusive love of God, made known to us through Jesus Christ, regardless of who is made nervous by this liberating message.

All this talk about tracks brought to mind one of my favorite tunes:


Here's the lyrics of that last verse, in case you missed it:

He hears the silence howling
Catches angels as they fall.
And the all-time winner
Has got him by the balls.
He picks up Gideon's Bible
Open at page one
God stole the handle and
The train won't stop going
No way to slow down.

The train won't stop going. No way to slow down. Canterbury and those bishops he is entertaining this week might as well just get used to it.

Now, please feel free to critique my rather shallow comments about this latest development in the Anglican saga. But, I will consider any criticism of Jethro Tull to be blasphemous. You have been warned.

J.

Akinola's Primacy: The Rest of the Story

Thinking Anglicans draws our attention to an article entitled Akinola's Primacy: The Journey So Far. It was penned by Gbenga Onayiga, the Diocesan Communicator of the Anglican Diocese of Abuja. As you might imagine, it highlights, in glowing terms, every positive aspect of Abp. Akinola's primacy. There's also more than a few questionable additions to this long list of accomplishments. Here's part of the conclusion:

...Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but anyone who does not think that Akinola's primacy is a resounding success will have an uphill task for a better comparison, as the Church has never had it so good. In fact, Archbishop Akinola has succeeded in putting the Primacy of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) at a level that will take a very long time to equal nationally, regionally and globally. By the foregone indications, he has immensely endowed the future generation of Anglicans in many unprecedented ways...

There are a number of commendable initiatives attributed to Abp. Akinola, identified by Onayiga as "A Hero of Our Time." But I note that there are other actions by the Archbishop that seem to have been left off this lengthy list. As a matter of fact, as I review past entries on this site, I spot at least half a dozen rather important stories in which Abp. Akinola played a prominent role. It seems to me that we might be of assistance to Mr. Onayiga by suggesting a few additions to the "hero's" story:

June, 2003 - Anglican Leader Raises Stakes With New Gay Outburst:

...Peter Akinola, leader of the 17.5 million-strong church in Nigeria, hit out at the recent election in America of the first openly gay bishop.

'This is an attack on the Church of God - a Satanic attack on God's church,' he told the Lagos-based Guardian newspaper.

'I cannot think of how a man in his senses would be having a sexual relationship with another man. Even in the world of animals, dogs, cows, lions, we don't hear of such things.

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

Akinola restated an earlier warning that he will precipitate a split between the Nigerian Church and the Church of England if it consecrates its first gay bishop, the self-avowed chaste homosexual Canon Jeffrey John...

September, 2005 - Akinola: "Gays Produce Hooligans":

...Homosexuality and lesbianism, like divorce, breed a society of single parents which gives rise to a generation of bastards. And in the context of much poverty and lack of education, this further produces an ill-bred generation of hooligans, portending much terror to the peace and stability of the society...

February, 2006 - The Bill Against Homosexuality:

...The Church commends the law-makers for their prompt reaction to outlaw same-sex relationships in Nigeria and calls for the bill to be passed since the idea expressed in the bill is the moral position of Nigerians regarding human sexuality...

Note that one of the accolades showered upon Akinola in the Onayiga piece is "Giving Voice to the Voiceless." One must assume, based on the above statements, that gay Anglicans were excluded from this gift. Incarceration was Akinola's preferred solution to such "satanic attacks". Being in prison would certainly qualify one as "voiceless."

Read more about Akinola's unique version of the mandated Anglcan Listening Process here and here.

March, 2006 - Censure Peter Akinola:

...A COALITION of volunteers in Nigeria has written an open letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury asking him to denounce last week's "irresponsible" statement by the Archbishop of Nigeria, the Most Revd Peter Akinola, on the current Christian-Muslim riots.

Archbishop Akinola, writing as president of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), had warned Muslims that "they do not have the monopoly of violence in this nation. . . . CAN may no longer be able to contain our restive youths should this ugly trend continue."

The volunteers say this "aggressive and inflammatory rhetoric" will incite further violence...

From Stephen Bates:

...last week our old friend Archbishop Akinola waded into the inter-religious violence in Nigeria with all the abandon of a man waving a lighted match near a pool of petrol, threatening Muslims that they did not have a monopoly of violence. Who knows what the effect, but shortly afterwards Christian mobs in Onitsha started hacking people to death with machetes. The only people I can find who condoned the Archbishop’s remarks were on American blogsites. Even his fellow bishop Cyril Okorocha thought he was being inflammatory...

January, 2007 - A Letter to The Diocese of Virginia from the Rt. Rev. Peter James Lee, Bishop:

...The Church of Nigeria, like The Episcopal Church, is an autonomous province of the Anglican Communion with clearly defined boundaries. Bonds of affection in the Anglican Communion hold that provincial boundaries are not crossed by bishops without expressed invitation. Bishop Akinola’s effort to establish CANA within the boundaries of The Episcopal Church has occurred without any invitation or authorization whatsoever and violates centuries of established Anglican heritage. As the Archbishop of Canterbury has made clear, CANA is not a branch of the Anglican Communion and does not have his encouragement...

More on Akinola's border crossings in order to pillage American congregations here.

February, 2008 - Abp. Akinola and the Massacre of Yelwa:

...... At the time of the massacre, Archbishop Peter Akinola was the president of the Christian Association of  Nigeria, whose membership was implicated in the killings...

...When asked if those wearing name tags that read “Christian Association of Nigeria” had been sent to the Muslim part of Yelwa, the archbishop grinned. “No comment,” he said. “No Christian would pray for violence, but it would be utterly naive to sweep this issue of Islam under the carpet.” He went on, “I’m not out to combat anybody. I’m only doing what the Holy Spirit tells me to do. I’m living my faith, practicing and preaching that Jesus Christ is the one and only way to God, and they respect me for it. They know where we stand. I’ve said before: let no Muslim think they have the monopoly on violence”...

June, 2008 - Peter Akinola Refused Entry Into Jordan:

On his way to the GAFCON consultation in Jordan, Abp. Akinola was refused entry at the border...

...90% of all Jordanians adhere to Sunni Islam. Their Constitution stipulates that the king and his successors must be Muslims and sons of Muslim parents. Regardless of the various other reasons that will be offered, I think it is safe to assume that the motivation for banning Abp. Peter Akinola (and no one else, including members of his own delegation) from entering Jordan was because the leadership of Jordan had serious reservations about allowing someone who is implicated in violent crimes against Muslims to enter their country...

So there are just a few highlights that I'd like to see added to Abp. Akinola's list of accomplishments. There are quite a few more, that I'd be happy to provide Mr. Onayiga upon request.

A lasting tribute to a great hero needs to include the rest of the story, don't you think?

J.

The Episcopal Church: "God Loves You"

Go read this.

I'm biting my tongue, for now, as the above post is quite moving, if you read between the lines. Although I'm witholding further comment, I do invite your reactions.

On other fronts...yes, I'm using my time to write. Is it a productive use of my time? Well, that remains to be seen.

J.

Wrestling with Writing

I need your help.

Here's the situation. I've got a bit of time on my hands at the moment. Not a lot, but enough to get a writing project completed. Most likely only one project, however.

Although I've written a number of essays over the years, and had limited success in getting some of them published, I've been working on some book length projects at the same time. I've not submitted any of them for publication, as none of them are even close to being completed. My dilemma is that I tend to flit between them, resulting in nothing being completed, and some severe problems from blending the voices of the various projects.

So, I need to pick one, and stick with it until completed.

Here's where I'd appreciate your help. I'll list the projects, in order of my current enthusiasm for them (which I'll admit does tend to change from day to day). I ask for your recommendation as to which one I should work on for the next couple of months. The goal is to get it done. Marketable, etc. are secondary considerations (although insights regarding those aspects will also be appreciated). Eventually, I intend to complete all four projects. My current wrestling match is in regards to which one I can realistically expect to complete within the next 60 to 90 days.

So, here they are:

1. Autobiographical - This would be the easiest to finish writing, as it requires little research. I've got lots of stories, some over 30 years old, of which the details are still quite vivid. Most likely the format would be to include some kind of spiritually oriented commentary. Some examples would be The Boys of Hall and Longing for Home. Much of this is already written, in various forms. It would be a matter of pulling it all together under a unifying theme, perhaps along the lines of the Stopping the World series.

2. The Anglican Wars - Although this would take some research, much of that work has already been done on this site and elsewhere. This might be structurred along the lines of telling the story of Jake's place, and using some of the posts and comments to document the last six years of the current unpleasantness within the Anglican Communion (since the Windsor Report). The reservation I have with this project is that it would offer little in the way of new information, and would serve no real purpose, as those who are interested could get the same info by spending some time here. However, it might be helpful to have all the information pulled together into one resource.

3. Fiction - I'm playing with a story that might be labeled as falling into the "urban sci-fi" genre. I'm hesitant to say more about this. Fiction is a real art, and on bad days, I look at what I've done and define it as nothing more than amateur crap. On good days, it's not all that bad. But this is a very competitive field, in which only the brilliant survive. My work is far from brilliant. I find it an amusing pastime, however, so will probably continue to play with it. Not sure this is such a good choice for the limited window of time I have right now.

4. Evangelism - I've done quite a bit of work in this field, and have something to say about it, but I'm not sure this is the best time for me to complete this work. There's some internal turmoil in regards to this particular topic right now. I'd rather wait until I was sure I was not being driven by an underneath "I'll show you!" motive. You can get an idea of what the content might be in this video, which is hosted through the generosity of the Diocese of Washington.

So, there are my options. Please note, "none of the above" is a valid fifth option, and any alternative proposals would then become a sixth, seventh, etc. option.

What is your advice?

Thanks for your help!

J.

Christians Against Health Care For All?

I must admit to being simply astounded that anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ would be against providing health care for every child of God.

Unless you cut out the 25th chapter of Matthew, the parable of the Good Samaritan, the year of Jubilee, and various other big swaths of scripture, it is simply impossible to refute the clear message that God has a preferential bias for the poor.

More than 46 million Americans lack any kind of health insurance. Millions more are are underinsured. Many of them don't have coverage because they simply can't afford it. And, because of that, people are dying. Specifically, at least 22,000 Americans die every year because they don't have health insurance or because they are underinsured. The current health care system simply does not work.

Yet, this guy claims that the health care reform currently being considered by congress is anti-Christian:

ObamaCare is immoral and anti-Christian.

It is immoral to rob citizens of the their hard-earned money in order to give to other citizens something that they did not earn. That is government-sanctioned stealing, pure and simple. And it is anti-Christian to take something out of the hands of individual believers something that they should voluntarily do out of their compassion for the poor, and place it in the hands of government to do through a mandated program...

His argument seems to be that the churches should provide for the health care needs of the poor. In theory, that is a lovely idea. But here's the problem: IT DOESN'T WORK! The churches do not have the structures in place to address such a huge problem. If they did, it would already be happening. But, except for a few scattered church-sponsored providers, it hasn't happened in the past, so there is little reason to think it's going to happen in the future. The efforts of the churches alone, although commendable, simply cannot meet the needs of 48 million Americans.

It is obvious as one reads the above article that the author cares little about those who are suffering and dying because of lack of medical attention. He is using this issue to rant about his own political agenda, nothing more. He provides a shameful witness to his Christian faith.

There are others who bring shame on all Christians by repeating outright lies regarding H.R. 3200: America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009. I suggest that you read the bill for yourself first, and then look around elsewhere on the net, before jumping on the bandwagon of such extremist positions.

Let's touch on some of the more outlandish accusations being made. :

1. "Death Panels" - Here's the relevant section of the bill. As you can see, this is an "end of life counseling" session, and is completely voluntary. The idea that some panel is going to decide to kill grandma is just plain nuts.

2. Federally funded abortion - FactCheck claims that this is true, while PolitiFact claims it is false. Why the confusion?

Read the two relevant sections of the bill here. As you can see, "abortion" is not mentioned. It was introduced into the bill by the Capps Amendment, which is an attempt to make sure public funds are not used for abortions.

What FactCheck and PoitiFact did not mention (although Open Congress did) was that nothing in the bill or the amendment nullifies the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prevents any federal funds being used for abortions, except in a few limited cases; rape, incest, or danger to the mother's health.

This bill does not introduce any new legislation that would allow federal funds to be used for abortions.

3. Illegal Immigrants - I have no idea where this one came from. In sections 242 and 246 of the bill, it is made clear that those elgible must be "lawfully present" in the US.

There's other false statements being made, such as "it will raise taxes" (sure, if you make more than $350,000 a year), and "it will take away the private insurance option" (actually, it will expand your options, while not eliminating any of them). If you want to learn more about some of these popular distortions, take a look here and here.

I also recommend that you consider A Christian Creed on Health Care Reform:

As one of God's children, I believe that protecting the health of each human being is a profoundly important personal and communal responsibility for people of faith.

I believe God created each person in the divine image to be spiritually and physically healthy. I feel the pain of sickness and disease in our broken world (Genesis 1:27, Romans 8:22).

I believe life and healing are core tenets of the Christian life. Christ's ministry included physical healing, and we are called to participate in God's new creation as instruments of healing and redemption (Matthew 4:23, Luke 9:1-6; Mark 7:32-35, Acts 10:38). Our nation should strive to ensure all people have access to life-giving treatments and care.

I believe, as taught by the Hebrew prophets and Jesus, that the measure of a society is seen in how it treats the most vulnerable. The current discussion about health-care reform is important for the United States to move toward a more just system of providing care to all people (Isaiah 1:16-17, Jeremiah 7:5-7, Matthew 25:31-45).

I believe that all people have a moral obligation to tell the truth. To serve the common good of our entire nation, all parties debating reform should tell the truth and refrain from distorting facts or using fear-based messaging (Leviticus 19:11; Ephesians 4:14-15, 25; Proverbs 6:16-19).

I believe that Christians should seek to bring health and well-being (shalom) to the society into which God has placed us, for a healthy society benefits all members (Jeremiah 29:7).

I believe in a time when all will live long and healthy lives, from infancy to old age (Isaiah 65:20), and "mourning and crying and pain will be no more" (Revelation 21:4). My heart breaks for my brothers and sisters who watch their loved ones suffer, or who suffer themselves, because they cannot afford a trip to the doctor. I stand with them in their suffering.

I believe health-care reform must rest on a foundation of values that affirm each and every life as a sacred gift from the Creator (Genesis 2:7).

Amen.

J.

UPDATE: Cany provides us with a great link that exposes 14 of the top health care reform myths, as well as two clips from The Daily Show that are excellent examples of just how bizarre this debate has become. Go pay her a visit.

ELCA Approves Gay Clergy

Here's what was passed:

RESOLVED, that the ELCA commit itself to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church.

Vote was 559 yes, 451 no.

They did it! They really did it! Praise God!

The UCC, TEC and now the ELCA are united on this matter.

May the Methodists be next!

J.

UPDATE: Resolution Four, which "proposes the specifics of how this church can move toward change in a way that respects the bound consciences of all" was also approved, 667 to 307.

Caminante offer us some quotes and commentary drawn from the live feed of the Assembly.

The news release regarding this historic day can be found here.

Lutherans Support Same Gender Relationships

From here:

Resolved that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same gender relationships.

The vote was 61% yea and 39% nay.

This has been confirmed by tweets (#elca, #cwa09, #goodsoil09). Apparently, it sounds like it was announced that using twitter during plenary sessions was "inappropriate," so little info is getting out.

This afternoon will bring us the vote regarding gay clergy. You can view the session live here. It begins at 2:00 central time.

Keep praying.

J.

UPDATE: The Lead is also covering this.

This action now appears on the official Assembly Voting Results page.

The ELCA's Sexuality Statement: A Tepid Testament?

Yesterday, we talked about the ELCA's approval of a social statement; Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust. In most places, there was much rejoicing over this statement, as it is seen as clearing the way for further movement by the ELCA towards condemning bigotry committed in the name of God.

To be quite honest, as I read the statement, I found myself straining to find much in the way of Good News, at least in regards to repenting of the horrendous way Christians have treated gay and lesbian persons. It seemed like a very "safe" statement. But, perhaps since I'm still getting used to writing once again without censors looking over my shoulder, I just left that conclusion up to all of you.

Today, I came across an article that says pretty much what I wanted to say, if I had fully recovered my voice. It is written by Candace Chellew-Hodge, the founder/editor of Whosoever and author of A Bulletproof Faith: A Spiritual Survival Guide for Gay and Lesbian Christians. It is entitled Lutherans Reap the Whirlwind, although I kind of fancy her alternative title ("God Breaks Wind on the Lutherans"). Now, if that doesn't get you curious enough to go read her essay...then just move along, folks, because nothing that follows will entice you further!

Here's the part that needed to be said by someone:

...The human sexuality document, meanwhile, is a tepid testament to much ballyhooed, but ultimately ineffectual church councils. It affirms marriage as being between a man and a woman and simply outlines all the different beliefs around homosexuality (that some say it's wrong and some say it's right) and urges Lutherans to stop throwing chairs at each other over the issue. So, it's simply an acknowledgement that people disagree on this issue and we should all get along, with the help of God. Yawn. So much for bold statements from the ELCA.

If the ELCA wants to see how to make a bold statement on human sexuality, they need to check out the UCC statement from its 2005 Synod where it gave its unqualified support to marriage equality for gays and lesbians. Launch another council and study this statement – then you'll know what it looks like to take a bold stand for God's unconditional love of all in the world. They may also want to study the Episcopal Church's recent decision to trash its de facto moratorium on gay and lesbian bishops. That's another example of a church boldly becoming society's headlights instead of always being the taillights...

If Christendom is to recover from the extremist reputation we have earned by being too timid while self-serving bigots grabbed the spotlight and trashed our tradition, it is time for bold moves. We must recognize that what is called "playing it safe" is actually condemning an innocent minority to appease the personal biases of the extremists. That may be safe, but it most certainly is not just.

This story is not over, however. Tomorrow the ELCA will have one last chance to make a bold move, as Candace notes:

...The ELCA does have a chance to make that bold statement as they take up the Report and Recommendation on Ministry Policies before the week is through. Here is where they get a chance to either affirm God's call to gay and lesbian ministers or toss them under the ecclesiastical bus like they've done for so many years...

One would hope that the Lutherans have been paying attention to the saga of the Episcopal Church. We have also thrown some of our members under that bus a few times. We all remember the fiasco known as B033, in which we heeded the call for "sacrifice," so that the Bishops could go to Lambeth. Other than that, our self-imposed "restraint" accomplished nothing. Foreign Primates continued to pillage our churches. Blatant lies and threats of violence were still hurled at our Church. And now, with the development of an Anglican Covenant, the Communion is asking us to once again compromise our integrity and abandon our members for the sake of the illusion of unity.

But, I believe TEC has learned her lesson. I don't think we'll entertain any ideas of a Covenant now, or in the years to come. Sacrificing members of the Body of Christ (without asking their permission, btw) will not soothe the rage of the extremists. It will only embolden them further.

I pray the Lutherans will be bold, and be willing to risk much for the sake of the Gospel, the message of the redemptive power of God's radically inclusive love.

Pray for the Church.

J.

Lutherans Take First Step Towards Equality for All

By an extremely close vote, the 2009 Churchwide Assembly of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America approved a proposed Social Statement, Human Sexuality: Gift and Trust.

The statement itself is very carefully worded so as to include every perspective on these matters. For instance, consider this small section:

...We in the ELCA recognize that many of our sisters and brothers in same-gender relationships sincerely desire the support of other Christians for living faithfully in all aspects of their lives, including their sexual fidelity. In response, we have drawn deeply on our Lutheran theological heritage and Scripture. This has led, however, to differing and conscience-bound understandings about the place of such relationships within the Christian community. We have come to various conclusions concerning how to regard lifelong, monogamous same-gender relationships, including whether and how to publicly recognize their lifelong commitments.

While Lutherans hold various convictions regarding lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships, this church is united on many critical issues. It opposes all forms of verbal or physical harassment and assault based on sexual orientation. It supports legislation and policies to protect civil rights and to prohibit discrimination in housing, employment, and public services. It has called upon congregations and members to welcome, care for, and support same-gender couples and their families, and to advocate for their legal protection.

The ELCA recognizes that it has a pastoral responsibility to all children of God. This includes a pastoral responsibility to those who are same-gender in their orientation and to those who are seeking counsel about their sexual self-understanding. All are encouraged to avail themselves of the means of grace and pastoral care...

...We understand that, in this discernment about ethics and church practice, faithful people can and will come to different conclusions about the meaning of Scripture and about what constitutes responsible action. We further believe that this church, on the basis of “the bound conscience,”
will include these different understandings and practices within its life as it seeks to live out its mission and ministry in the world...

As I read this, it appears to adopt what we Episcopalians sometimes refer to as the "local option."

This will clear the way for the adoption of the recommendations on Ministry Policies, which are expected to be considered tomorrow. Here's the first three recommendations:

1. RESOLVED, that the ELCA commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable life-long,monogamous, same-gender relationships.

2. RESOLVED, that the ELCA commit itself to finding a way for people in such publicly accountable, lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships to serve as rostered leaders of this church.

3. RESOLVED, that, in the implementation of these resolutions, the ELCA commit itself to bear one another’s burdens, love the neighbor, and respect the bound consciences of all.

This concept of "Bound Conscience" appears to be an important component of both of these actions. A good summary of this concept can be found here. To put it simply, this is a call to respect those who hold a different position from your own on these matters, recognizing that "their consciences are bound to particular interpretations of Scripture and tradition."

Pray for the ELCA.

Pray for the Church.

J.

About Those Town Hall Meetings...

Mad Priest points us to the best response I've seen yet to the shrill nut jobs showing up at the health care town hall meetings:

Indeed, it is like arguing with the dining room table, isn't it?

And now some of these kooks are showing up with sidearms, as if they'll get some respect because they are armed, I suppose. Any small amount of respect for this group that I may have held somewhere in the recesses of my mind was lost by that absurd stunt.

I learned a bit about the use of weapons during my younger, crazier years. And one of the absolute rules is that you don't go brandishing a weapon unless you intend to use it. So, are these "macho men" intending to shoot someone over health care? I doubt it. Posers, every one.

In attempt to return to some form of sanity, please feel free to use this thread to express your thoughts on any aspect of health care reform.

J.

The Heresy of Individualism

As you may recall, there was much discussion about a section of our Presiding Bishop's opening address at General Convention. Here's the part that drew so much attention:

...The overarching connection in all of these crises has to do with the great Western heresy – that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God. It’s caricatured in some quarters by insisting that salvation depends on reciting a specific verbal formula about Jesus. That individualist focus is a form of idolatry, for it puts me and my words in the place that only God can occupy, at the center of existence, as the ground of being...

Bp. Bena of CANA recently tried to get some mileage out of that statement:

...They listen to religious leaders who teach bad religion, who don’t tell them the truth. For a Christian leader to stand and say, with the whole nation listening, that personal salvation is a heresy -- in my humble opinion, that teaching insults our Heavenly Father, who wishes each one of us to have a personal, saving relationship with His Son...

Of course, for Bp. Bena, that was just a warm up for his real issue: the litigations against those who are attempting to steal property. He even attempts to channel Ronald Reagan at one point. Sorry Bishop, but, in my opinion, you are no Ronald Reagan.

Apparently, the significance of what Bishop Katharine was saying is lost on some folks. Let me see if I can be of assistance by offering similar quotes from various other people.

Here's some thoughts from the Orthodox perspective:

...Perhaps the most difficult theological truth to communicate in the modern world is that of personal existence. Modern English has taken the word person from the realm of theology and changed it into the cheapest coin of the realm. Today it means that which is private, merely individual. As such, it becomes synonymous not with salvation but with our very destruction. Life lived as a mere individual is no life at all but a progressive movement towards death and destruction.

Thus there is always something of a hesitancy when someone asks (in newspeak), “Have you accepted Jesus Christ as your personal savior?” If only we would, it would be truly significant. But in our modern street-wise theology, Christ as personal savior becomes synonymous with Christ as private savior, and as such is no savior at all. For no one and nothing can save the false existence we have created in the privacy of our modern existence. We were not created for such an existence.

In the story of Genesis – the first appearance of the phrase, “It is not good,” is applied to man – in an existence that is private. “It is not good for man to be alone.” We do not exist in the goodness which God has created for us when we exist alone. The most remote hermit of the Christian desert does not live alone, but lives radically for others and to God. Of all men he is the least alone. No one would take on the radical ascesis of the desert for themselves alone: it is an act of radical love.

And thus the personal God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit, determined that salvation for humanity could only take place as we lived fully and truly into the existence for which we were and are created: the Church. In the Church we do not exist as mere individuals but as members of the Body of Christ. My life is the life of Christ. What happens to me is essential to what happens to all the members of the Body and what happens to the members of the Body is essential for what happens to me. Their life is my life...

And a little more from an Orthodox author:

...Orthodox theology is anything but individualistic. As theologians in the West have sought to recover a view of Christian community as more than a conglomeration of individuals. they have often turned to the work of John Zizioulas, a Greek Orthodox bishop and theologian. In his highly influential Being as Communion he argues that the inter-relationship of the three persons of the Trinity should serve as a model for human relationships.

Sarah Coakley thinks Zizioulas has been popular among Protestant theologians because they were already looking for a way past the "rampant individualism" of their culture. A vision of persons acting in self-emptying ways toward one another is deeply appealing in such a setting...

You can find Zizioulas' Being as Communion here.

Then, there is the work of C.H. Dodd:

...We have already observed that at a certain point in the Old Testament there is a change of emphasis. In the earlier parts the emphasis is upon the community; in the later parts the individual is more directly in view...

...In particular, it would be untrue and misleading to suggest that the New Testament represents the culmination of a development in the direction of individualism. It is of course true that the religious and moral significance of the individual is asserted by New Testament writers at least as firmly as by Jeremiah; but on the other hand the conception of an organic solidarity of the people of God reaches its fullest expression in the New Testament idea of the Church as the ‘Body of Christ’.

The comparison, which I suggested above, with the development of Greek thought aptly illustrates the point. There is no mistaking the thoroughgoing individualism of the Hellenistic world in the New Testament period. It found its highest expression in the Stoic philosophy, which, for all its efforts to call men to the service of humanity, had for its aim the ‘self-sufficiency’ of the individual (his ‘autarky’, as the newspapers now say, adopting a word from the vocabulary of Stoicism, but usually misspelling it). In contrast, anyone can see that Christianity brought into that world a new idea, and practice, of community.

But even in the Old Testament the break which we have noted at the time of Jeremiah is not nearly so complete as might appear on the surface. All through the Bible the individual is contemplated in the context of the community, though the emphasis shifts to some extent...

And some similar thoughts from Norman Pettinger:

The Bible begins its saga of man’s Salvation by portraying Adam alone in a garden. It closes that saga with the company of faithful people living in the City of God. The story is a story of man’s movement from solitude to fellowship, from individualism to community; and it is a way of saying that man, to be redeemed, needs not only the work of God for his Salvation but the companionship of his human brethren in God. That, I suppose, is the final reason why we need a Church.

We cannot even live to ourselves alone, much less be saved alone. Some of you may remember that Aristotle, the Greek philosopher, had occasion to remark that man is a social animal. We all know this is true, although frequently we try to evade the fact. There are plenty of people who want to be "lone wolves." There are very few people who succeed in that enterprise. We live one with another. The existence of the family is a token of this. God, the Prayer Book says in one of its collects, has set the solitary in families; and the man or woman who has not had some experience of family life is to that degree an impoverished human being. A child was found in India, so they say, who from earliest infancy had been away from fellow humans and lived amongst animals; and it was impossible, despite years of effort, once the child had been recovered, to make that child a fully-developed human being. A lone man may make a very good animal but he does not make a very good human. This is the natural ground for the religious fact of community -- one with another -- under God and in God...

It is time to let go of our nostalgic attachment to the "rugged individual," and recognize that our continual move towards individualism is having a negative impact on so many aspects of our clulture.

It is time to reject the heresy of individualism. Being "in Christ" is to belong to the Body of Christ, a community comprised of many members. My salvation is indeed yoked to your salvation.

Your thoughts?

J.

Bishop Lawrence: "No Hasty Departure"

Bishop Lawrence addressed the clergy of South Carolina today. Here's part of his opening comments:

...While I have no immediate solution to the challenges we face—it is certainly neither a hasty departure nor a paralyzed passivity I counsel. Either of these I believe, regardless of what godly wisdom they may be for others, would be for us a false peace and a “fatal security” which in time (and brief at that) would only betray us. Others in their given circumstances must do what they believe God has called them to do...

Later on, he makes this comment:

...I believe we have a unique role to play within the Anglican Communion. If at present we play that role by being in but not of the mainstream of TEC is it any less important?

It appears Bishop Lawrence's counsel is to remain in TEC.

Most of the rest of his statement I find rather troubling. It causes me to wonder if the Bishop has ever sat down and had a real conversation with a progressive Christian. He lays out a number of accusations that are simply quite bizarre. To give him the benefit of the doubt, I want to assume that he has been misinformed, and is not intentionally bearing false witness against his brothers and sisters in Christ.

To offer just a few examples, he spends quite a bit of time on this thing he calls "The False Gospel of Indiscriminate Inclusivity." False Gospel? You mean the Gospel of John 3:16? The Gospel that clearly states that WHOSOEVER believes will be saved? God's grace is indeed indiscriminate. All are offered the gift of grace. None are excluded from that invitation.

One might assume that the Bishop's point is more about the transformation that occurs once a person accepts the free and radically inclusive gift of God's grace. Specifically, I would imagine that the Bishop has accepted as fact that all progressive Christians are light on sin and the need for repentance. That is simply not true. The shift in the way we acknowledge the gifts of women and GLBTs in the Church does not signal that we have suddenly embraced an "anything goes" approach to sin and repentance. In fact, upon considering the history of the abuse of those two groups by the Church, we are calling the Church to repent of the sins of misogyny and bigotry. If anything, we have expanded our awareness of sin in our own lives, and in this world.

The Bishop then provides a list of what he considers current "false teachings" in TEC. The first one he lists is "The Trinity." I was rather startled by that. I don't think I've ever met an Episcopalian that was not a Trinitarian. Upon further reading, it appears the Bishop's primary example for this accusation is the tendency in some places, and in some trial liturgies, to not refer to "three Persons in one Nature" as  "Father, Son and Holy Spirit." On that basis, he claims that in the name of inclusion (and radical feminism) TEC has abandoned the doctrine of the Trinity. I don't know about you, but to me that sounds like a bit of a stretch.

The next "false teaching" is "The Uniqueness of Christ." As you can imagine, he focuses in on our Presiding Bishop's controversial statements on this matter, and leaps from there to "the pervasiveness of this inclusive Gospel." As you probably know, the relevant biblical passage for this issue is John 14:6..."No one comes to the Father except through me." Apparently, the Bishop believes that gaining access to God through Jesus Christ involves reciting some formula (perhaps the Jesus prayer?) in which the use of only certain words, leading to particular concepts, can assure one of salvation. Never mind if the person is not accustomed to Western thought, or suffers from some disability that does not allow such intellectual constructs to be understood. This narrow focus on formularies of words as the only way to move "through" Christ is made even more clear by the Bishop's fixation on the use of the term "Lord" at the end of this accusation.

God's ways are not our ways. I don't think it serves us well to assume that we can place limits on the how God moves in the lives of others.  We limited beings are not the ones to define the means by which we can enter into a relationship with God through Jesus Christ.  Due to our own flawed nature, most likely we'll get it wrong.

The next example of "false teaching" is "Scriptural Authority." The Bishop makes this statement: "Too often supposed conundrums or difficulties are brought up, seemingly in order to detract from traditional understandings..." Or, perhaps because some of us are honestly struggling with the text? Or would the Bishop prefer that we just ignore the obvious difficulties? Then the Bishops offers this: "Ridiculous arguments such as shellfish and mixed fabrics are dragged out (long reconciled by the Fathers of the Church, as well as the Anglican Reformers) in order to confuse the ill-taught or the untutored in theology." It's all a plot, you see.

I guess we should just shut up about those texts in which we find that it is lawful to kill your disobedient child, or stories about God sending bears to maul the children. These are not "ridiculous arguments." To remain silent about them is to deny the fact that there are parts of the bible that are quite ugly. Our challenge is to not ignore those ugly bits, but to wrestle with them; to honestly attempt to grapple with what those stories reveal about those who told them, about what they reveal of their relationship with God, and to then reflect on how such unpleasant passages inform us about our own relationship with God. Hiding the conundrums because they are difficult is simply another form of denial. So, who is it that is denying the authority of scripture?

The next "false teaching" is "Baptismal Theology detached from Biblical and Catholic doctrine." The bishop challenges the statement "all the sacraments for all the baptized." It is difficult to pinpoint exactly why the Bishop considers TEC to have an "inadequate baptismal theology." One must assume that in the case of GLBT Christians, he feels they have not repented and died to sin. The evidence for such an offensive assumption is not provided. He then states, "Since when has baptism been the ticket to ordination in the Church?" Not a ticket, but, according to our tradition, certainly a prerequisite. The only way we can continue to exclude people from the sacrament of Holy Orders based on their sexual orientation is to quit baptizing them. That's the point.

Next false teaching is "Human Sexuality." From the Bishop: "...it has been a clever device of some in recent years to refer to the varied approach to marriage in the different epochs of biblical history, often done in ways that are intended to bring more confusion rather than clarity..." Is the Bishop denying that there are numerous models of "marriage" in the scriptures? Is the Bishop denying that what we now consider to be "marriage" is a rather recent innovation?

The way in which two people are united in a long-term monogamous relationship rooted in love, a love that is the closest expression most of us will ever experience of divine love, has continued to evolve. In these times of increasing divorces and damaged families, it would seem to me that the Church should be about the business of encouraging more committed relationships, not banning them because of personal biases backed by the questionable interpretation of five bible verses.

The final "false teaching" is "Constitution & Canons—Common Life." The Bishop seems to be making the argument that C056 broke our own Constitution and Canons. The Bishop may want to give that resolution another read. It calls for a "generous pastoral response" and a gathering of resources. If and when we authorize "gay marriage," the relevant canons will have to be addressed, of course. The earliest that will happen will be in 2012.

There's much in this address that will probably be cause for most extreme conservatives, and probably a few conservatives, to stand up and cheer. I found it to be a rather offensive remix of an extreme position in a debate that has now been going on for much too long.

But, as I said in the beginning, it appears Bishop Lawrence is in TEC (although not "of" TEC) for the long haul. That is indeed good news.

J.