Clericalism: An Institutional Challenge

I enjoyed my visit with the folks of the Diocese of Nevada. My new friend Rick has posted some generous thoughts about what I shared. Thanks, Rick.

When I arrived for their Annual Convention, I was somewhat surprised to see that I had overdressed for the occasion. There was only one other person in the room wearing a clerical collar. As I got to know them all a bit better, I came to realize that was not accidental. They didn't see themselves as "clergy" and "laity." They were simply the people of God, gathered for ministry. It was a very refreshing perspective.

I want to talk about that division between "clergy" and "laity" that we make in most places around the Church. Consider this a continuation of our discussion on bishops, which grew out of a previous post on authority.

I've been talking with a few folks about possible positions. I look at their "historic" buildings (which are often in need of immediate repair), take a look at their numbers, and am usually struck by that sinking feeling as the realization hits that they can't afford me. Most likely I'll accept a position somewhere soon, but it will probably be in a less than full time capacity.

And that's ok with me. Often it is not ok with the parish, though. To not have a full-time seminary trained priest is a loss of prestige. It means they have failed somehow.

We've got a problem. A serious problem. To explain the nature of the problem, I'll start with an example of the financial reality, even though I think the problem is rooted in something much more deeply troubling than money matters.

To have a full-time professional clergy person on staff costs a congregation about $75,000 to $80,000 annually, if you figure in health insurance and pension payments. That means, if you have 80 families ("pledging units") giving $2,000 a year, your clergy person is going to be half your budget, leaving you about $80,000 a year for maintenance of the physical plant and mission beyond your walls. In some places, that's enough to just get by, but you won't be putting anything away for the long-term maintenance projects that come with the territory when you're in an "historic" building.

Many Episcopal congregations have far fewer than 80 pledges. That's just the reality, especially if you are in a small rural setting. To keep on telling them that they need to grow is not the answer. That not only gives them an inferiority complex, it also makes "evangelism" be driven by trying to balance the budget.

The clergy who serve in these small congregations see the financial reality, and often carry a heavy weight of guilt around with them because they know that they are drawing half the budget. And here's where the bigger problem comes in.

Often, without realizing it, clergy in a small congregation will work long hard hours, feeling that since they consume so much of the pledge income, they need to earn it. They will not only offer the sacraments and visit the sick, but will also offer three classes, make a schedule to visit every member, attend every meeting, get involved in ecumenical events, do the newsletter, change the lightbulbs and mow the lawn.

There's nothing wrong with staying busy. But, much of what many clergy do on a day to day basis can just as easily be done by someone else. And by doing it all, the clergy person is actually taking away ministry opportunities from the rest of the members of the community.

Now, it may be the case that in some places the expectation is that the clergy should indeed do everything. Keep in mind that one of the three shifts we are witnessing is the move to a more "consumer society" orientation. When we begin to see the clergy as THE ministers, then the members become simply passive consumers of ministry. That is not a healthy model for a Christian community.

I've served in quite a few congregations, and, although the "consumer" mentality was not true for all of them, it was the norm. Often, it is during the interim period, when they don't have a permanent priest "in charge" that some congregations come alive. But, when the search ends, they sigh with relief, because now they can stop making those hospital calls, or chairing those meetings, or teaching that class.

Something is not right here.

The Diocese of Wyoming has this quote from Elton Trueblood on their Ministry Page:

If you are a Christian, you are a minister. This proposition is absolutely basic to any understanding of the Christian movement. A non-ministering Christian is a contradiction in terms. The Christian faith is not made up of spectators listening to professionals, and it is not for individuals who are seeking, primarily, to save their own souls. It is necessarily made up of persons who are called to serve as representatives of Christ in the world, and to serve means to minister. Ministry is intrinsic to the Christian life. Ministry is not something added or means to an end; it is central and ineradicable.

Is there a way that we can recognize the gifts of every baptized member of the Church, and allow the full expression of those gifts?

Yes, there is, but it requires some radical rethinking of our whole concept of ministry. Some, especially many of the professionally trained clergy, are going to buck against this rethinking, as it is going to require them to get out of the way.

I'm not suggesting that we simply eliminate seminary trained clergy. They have their place. But possibly that place is more along the lines of being a resource person for the ministry of all the baptized.

As a starting point to rethink our "consumer model" of ministry, I recommend that you consider some of the work already being done in the Dioceses of Alaska, Nevada, Northern Michigan, North Dakota, Montana, Colorado, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Western Kansas, Western New York, West Virginia, Vermont, Northern California, Minnesota, Oregon and several others. The concept that they are exploring is usually known as Total Ministry, but is sometimes referred to as Mutual Ministry. It's not perfect, but I think they are moving in the right direction. This idea was all the rage just a few years ago. We don't hear about it so much anymore. I think it is worth considering as one possible way for us to move into the future. Here is how it is described by the Diocese of Northern Michigan:

...we seek to honor the uniqueness of each baptized person and each local community in our diocesan community. We understand that the responsibility for mission and ministry in any place belongs primarily to the people of God in that place. In most settings, we do not send ministry to a community in the form of a professional, seminary trained rector or vicar who might minister to and on behalf of the baptized. Rather, we seek to develop the ministry of all the baptized in each community. Seminary trained persons serve as resource, offering support and encouragement, sharing in the ongoing formation and education of God's people living the Baptismal Covenant.

We use the term mutual ministry to describe this partnership. It is a partnership between God and God's people. It is a partnership among all God's people, among congregations on the regional level, on the diocesan level and beyond to the province, the national church and the world. In all arenas, we seek to extend this partnership beyond our denominational boundaries, working together with our sisters and brothers of other faith traditions as well.

The role of the missioner is not to deliver ministry, but to midwife the birth of giftedness already present in the baptized into ministry for mission. In each congregation a unique ministry development strategy is designed and pursued by the members of the congregation themselves, supported and nurtured by the regional missioners...

The Diocese of Minnesota offers some good links here and here.

The Diocese of Oregon has a Total Ministry site here.

The Diocese of Northern California offers a few links here.

The Diocese of Northern Michigan has been engaging this approach to ministry for over twenty years. You may recall that this innovative approach caused a few problems when they elected Kevin Thew Forrester as their Bishop/Ministry Developer. Actually, they selected an Episcopal Ministry Support Team, of which Kevin was only one member. The "process" raised more than a few eyebrows. Then, some of the more toxic blogs found out Kevin practiced Buddhist meditation (lions and tigers and Buddhists...oh my!) and the witch hunt commenced. Old sermons and iffy liturgies were dug up, and Kevin did not receive the required consents.

As you might imagine, the people of Northern Michigan were deeply troubled by all the ugly things being said about them and their choices for their Episcopal Ministry Team. Tomorrow, they will gather for their Diocesan Convention and plan for their future. Hopefully, they will be able to shrug off all the mud slung their way, and will not be tempted to abandon their ideals, which I happen to believe are the way of the future for us all.

Back in 1994 Northern Michigan made some significant changes to the way they run their Conventions. For example:

Every baptized person is entitled to seat and voice at Convention.

Each congregation (regardless of size) may send four voting delegates.

Clergy have vote if they are one of the four selected delegates from the congregation in which they worship.

No voting "by orders".

This should be a fascinating Convention. I think I'll join them. But, for this trip, perhaps I'll leave my clerical collar at home.

More tomorrow, from Escanaba, Michigan!

J.

Swimming the Tiber? I'll Pass, But Thanks for the Offer

So, Rome has decided to stick their nose into the current Anglican unpleasantness. Apparently, some Roman Catholic spin doctors seem to be unable to resist the temptation to use this occasion to take a jab or two at various Anglican leaders.

Now, will I use this opportunity to take a couple of pot shots at the Roman Catholic Church? I think not. My experience in local "Ministerial Associations" in which the Roman Catholic clergy participated has been that the Catholics told better jokes, served better liquor, and had a better grasp of sacramental theology. So, I'm not inclined to belittle their tradition.

I know such a swim is not for me, or for most Anglicans that I know. It is simply not an option, for numerous reasons. But I also realize that it may be a real consideration for some folks. For those Anglicans who are so inclined to join Rome, my only response is to say "Go with God."

But, for those who may be considering it, I hope that you take a look at Bosco Peter's commentary before making any final decisions. Here's part of it:

...Anglican orders are not accepted by the Vatican. Anglican “priests” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as priests will have to be ordained twice (or at least conditionally ordained twice). And they will have to be males. Anglican “bishops” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as bishops will have to be ordained thrice (or at least conditionally ordained thrice). And they will have to be males. And celibate...

Additionally, if later on you get upset by something your bishop does, don't even think of trying to leave and take your building with you. Such "congregational" ideas might get some play in the "via media," but I can guarantee you that they won't find a friendly reception in Rome.

In other news, I'm leaving for the Diocese of Nevada in the morning, to participate in their Diocesan Convention. The theme is "I Love to Tell the Story." I'm looking forward to it.

My daughter lives about 2 hours away, so we'll have some time togther as well. Since that area of the world is closer to both my daughters, I've often thought about retiring there some day, so I'll also be checking out a couple of horse ranches that I have my eye on.

Be back on Monday.

J.

Keith Ackerman Removed From the Ordained Minstry of This Church

Press release is here, which states, in part:

According to the statement, Jefferts Schori had thanked Ackerman in an October 7 letter "for your follow up note regarding your plans to function as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia in the Province of the Southern Cone. As you know, there is no provision for transferring a bishop to another Province. I am therefore releasing you from the obligations of ordained ministry in this Church.”

A little background regarding the former Bishop of Quincy might be in order.

He was elected as the Bishop of Quincy in 1994. As he has always been opposed to the ordination of women, there was some question as to if he would receive the necessary consents. Obviously, he did, with less difficulty than Jack Iker, no doubt because Keith strives very hard to be a "nice guy."

My experience is that he is indeed a "nice guy." He does not say or do the rude and obnoxious kind of things for which some of his peers are well known. He is courteous and pleasant, saying little most of the time. I am told he is an excellent retreat conductor.

However, following GC2003, he did attend the American Anglican Council's "A Place to Stand" conference in Texas, which was held in October, 2003. He supported the statement that came out of that conference, "Call to Action". Here's just a couple of points included in that statement:

6. We redirect our financial resources, to the fullest extent possible,toward biblically orthodox mission and ministry, and away from those structures that support the unrighteous actions of the General Convention. We will support our partners in the Anglican Communion.

7. We appeal to the Primates of the Anglican Communion to intervene in the
Episcopal Church to:

1. Discipline those bishops in the Episcopal Church who, by their actions,
have departed from biblical faith and order;

2. Guide the realignment of Anglicanism in North America;

3. Encourage orthodox bishops as they extend episcopal oversight, pastoral
care, and apostolic mission across current diocesan boundaries; and

4. Support isolated and beleaguered parishes and individuals in their life
and witness as faithful Anglican Christians...

Redirect funds, punish TEC, start the "realignment" (code for replacement of TEC), and engage in border crossings. These tactics were all supported by Bp. Ackerman.

Bp. Ackerman is also the President of Forward in Faith North America, which is an Anglo-Catholic group that rejects women's ordination as well as gay and lesbian ordinations.

As President of this group, Ackerman has made a number of brief statements on various developments over the years, for instance;

How pleased he was to get invited to GAFCON

.

How disappointed he was that his friend, John David Schofield, was deposed for trying to steal an entire diocese.

How saddened he was when Robert Duncan was deposed for trying to run off with his diocese.

So, as you can see, we have every reason to assume that Keith Ackerman, regardless of his pleasant manners, was one of the leaders of the attempted coup from the very beginning.

Following GC2006, Ackerman led the Diocese of Quincy in their attempt to seek Alternative Primatial Oversight, since the new Presiding Bishop was, in their minds, of the wrong gender.

On October 29, 2008, Ackerman announced that he would retire on November 1 (in three days). A week later, the diocese's annual synod voted to leave TEC and join the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. No doubt Ackerman felt that this manuever would protect him from being deposed.

After "retiring," he continues to serve as President of Forward in Faith and on the executive committee of ACNA (formerly the Common Cause, the Network and the American Anglican Council...same individuals, different organizational names).

One of his most recent adventures during retirement was to participate in exporting schism to other shores:

FIVE English Bishops are to take part in the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in London on July 6, expressing the breadth of support the fellowship, which had its roots in the Gafcon conference in Jerusalem last year, is experiencing...

...Bishop Ackerman, who is President of Forward in Faith in the USA, said: “One of the reasons I am really looking forward to being with my friends in England is so that I might be able to share with them the anointing of the Holy Spirit that has occurred at this gathering (of the installation of Archbishop Bob Duncan as Primate of the Anglican Church in North America at Christ Church Plano on June 24) here in Texas...

Did you notice where he is headed next? Bolivia. Yes. He is teaming up with the notorious pirate bishop of Bolivia! Imagine that.

It is sad to see such a nice guy having to renounce his ministry in this Church. But, in light of his record, and the company he's currently keeping, I think he's more than earned the same fate as the rest of the scoundrels.

J.

The Emergence of the Hidden Wisdom of God's People

In the last three posts, I've been talking about shifts that are happening in our culture, and how these shifts are impacting the Church. Authority, or the "freedom to act," no longer resides only with our institutional leaders, or even with the scholars. Instead, the authority rests within complex networks of relationships. Truth claims are refined and tempered as they run back and forth through this web of networks. While it is understood that scripture and tradition are part of this network, it is the living traditions, the people of God, informed through a discipline of prayer, study and action, that will discern the movement of God in the world today.

Last week, Bishop Peter Selby gave an address at the Inclusive Church's residential conference. It is entitled When the Word on the Street is Resist. It is quite good, and contains much worth noting. Mark offers some commentary on it here. Tobias offers a slightly different take on it here. But, what really caught my eye, as it is directly related to our recent conversations, is the section that Richard chose to highlight.

Here is that section again:

...First, though, a story: a colleague and his partner were to register their partnership, and a number of us were invited. There was no suggestion that there would be a blessing of this union, or anything else that might cause incongruity or unrecognisability. But it did so happen that the ceremony was arranged to take place closely after the usual time of the eucharist in the local Church, to which the guests were also invited. Not surprisingly prayers were offered for the pair, and the eucharist proceeded as usual - or not quite.

When time came for the distribution of the Sacrament, nothing had been said about what was to happen. But the congregation knew what was to happen: they remained in their seats until the pair whose partnership was to be registered had received together. Where was this unscripted choreography learned? Obviously through the attendance of many in the congregation at wedding eucharists. But this was not of course a wedding - or was it? Might not this event in the distribution of the Sacrament have been a picture of what at an earlier time the Archbishop would have called 'The Body's Grace', the mediation of truth through the liturgical actions of the people, while the official Church was still struggling to avoid an affirmation it was unwilling to make.

I tell the story not to argue against those others who have decided simply to disobey the rules. I tell it rather to show that while the Primates of our Communion labour at the question of incongruity, a different perception of the truth is being recognised in the actions of the people. Nor am I telling the story to suggest that actions of that kind can serve as a substitute for a just and faithful resolution of a conflict which has hurt too many and lasted too long. I tell the story because even as hierarchies struggle to maintain rigidities in place, even as persons are hurt and their ministries denied, something else is going on, namely the emergence of the hidden wisdom of God's people, a choreography of promise, a recognition which the official Church will surely have to take seriously. That will not be (as the Archbishop quite wrongly suggests) because the Church will have ended up conforming to social mores rather than critiqued them; it will be because truth has been discovered precisely in the context of biblical and theological reflection and acted out in worship; and what the pew sheet I quoted accurately called 'the current panic' will not outlast the God whose message is not to be afraid.

Do you see the significance of those words? Here is the key line again:

"...even as hierarchies struggle to maintain rigidities in place, even as persons are hurt and their ministries denied, something else is going on, namely the emergence of the hidden wisdom of God's people, a choreography of promise, a recognition which the official Church will surely have to take seriously..."

This is an excellent example of the kind of "authority" I've been trying to find words to talk about.

Listen for the Word of God. And expect that Word to come from the living traditions, who give voice to "the God whose message is not to be afraid."

J.

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.