What Can We Say?

In our previous conversation, we discussed seeking to understand those who have no belief in God. If you read that post, please take a moment to also read the comments. They offer some clarifications and additional information that you might find helpful.

In regards to how we might respond to those who don’t believe, there are quite a few popular approaches. There is the ontological argument, the cosmological argument and the teleological argument, among many others.

These more well known arguments make many good points, but to me, they are more problematic than helpful. They are structured for intellectual debates, not dialogues seeking understanding. Besides that, speaking personally, they do not really touch on the primary reasons I’m a believer.

The challenges from atheists I’ve encountered in our conversations about God have been cause for me to honestly question many of my assumptions. Over time, it felt like those conversations slowly peeled away the outer layers of my beliefs, until not much was left. Not much, but still something. Here’s two of the things I found under all those layers.

I believe in God because of my personal experiences. Throughout my life, I have had encounters with God, and many of them have been transformational. There is little doubt, to me, that those encounters have “saved” me from giving in to some of my more antisocial inclinations. Beyond that, to borrow from Jack Nicholson in As Good as It Gets, my experiences of God have “made me want to be a better man.” Because of the grace, the unmerited favor, I have experienced in my life, I have a desire to be a conduit of that grace in the lives of others.

There is a formal argument that uses this approach. It is called The Argument from Religious Experience (ARE). Here is what Keith Ward, until recently Regius Professor of Divinity at the University of Oxford, has to say about this approach:

…There are personal experiences, known to all of us in a direct and natural way, that do not fall within the domain of the natural sciences. The scientific domain is that of publicly observable objects in shared public space. Since science does not deal with personal experiences, it cannot itself give an account of what they are, or of how they relate to objects in physical space. Science itself cannot provide a comprehensive world-view, because there are aspects of reality with which it does not deal. The most obvious aspects of this sort are personal experiences, and it is precisely in such experiences that such notions as value and purpose have their home…

In his book The Case for Religion, Ward also argues that since experience is beyond the confines of empirical evidence, it should not be subjected to the same demands we expect of physical evidence. I’m not so sure I agree with that point.

I would suggest that personal experience is indeed evidence, but not as the term is used in the scientific method. Instead, it seems to me that personal experience is indeed convincing evidence, if it is compared to the evidence often found in a courtroom. In other words, our personal experience is our testimony.

Now, one of the challenges to ARE is that it is too subjective to be of value. This is a valid criticism. However, in our day to day lives, we accept many subjective perceptions as true, without testing them every time. Richard Swinburne calls this the principle of credulity. If someone tells us that they saw a tree, unless we have strong reasons to question their perceptions, we usually accept that as a true statement. When God experiences are challenged, and other experiences are not, it suggests a bias on the part of the challenger.

These personal experiences do not stand by themselves. We have the “testimonies” of millions throughout history who speak of similar experiences. It is at this point that I want to return to the bible (which I promised I’d get back to eventually in the last post).

The stories in the bible can be viewed as further “testimonies” of experiences of God. Of course the ways these experiences are described was influenced by the time frame and cultural setting in which the authors lived. Consequently, there is much in their stories that we view as not just primitive, but even repulsive. For me, the fact that those “ugly bits” still remain, and have not been edited out, gives these stories more authenticity. I would imagine that my stories of experiences of God will be equally repulsive to future generations. Referring to the comment in the last post, I do not find value in the bible because it is an instruction manual. The scriptures are of value to me because they offer testimonies of God’s presence in the lives of those who lived in ancient times.

So, we have the testimony from scripture, the testimony from the historical tradition, and the testimony of those who experience God in our own day. Subjective or not, unless one believes that the millions of people who have had these experiences are all delusional, I consider these testimonies to be fairly strong evidence for God.

Beyond the subjective nature of religious experience, another criticism of this approach is that the various religious traditions can’t agree on the meaning of these experiences. As a matter of fact, there are divisions within the traditions themselves regarding how such experiences might be appropriately expressed. Although the ways religious experiences are articulated are quite diverse, I think most of those differences can be attributed to cultural and language variations more than anything else.

If you consider the mystics of the different traditions, you find very little variation in the experiences they describe, regardless as to if they are Jewish, Sufi, Buddhist or Christian. The mystic has stripped away the layers, and stands naked before this “Something More” that my tradition calls God. Usually such experiences are beyond words or thoughts. But, in order to communicate to others the content of such experiences, the mystic is forced to use the symbols and words of the religious tradition that they know best, which is often a matter of their cultural setting rather than a choice of “right beliefs” over “wrong beliefs.” So, the mystic is often very conservative, in that they affirm the tradition in which they dwell. But at the same time, most mystics are also rebels, pushing the boundaries of those same traditions. My reason for bringing up the mystics is that I think it is their tradition that most clearly suggests that the various faith traditions are actually struggling to find a way to put into words very similar religious experiences. I don’t think the fact that many of the official teachings of the various traditions contradict one another is a good enough reason to reject the strong possibility that the experiences from which those teachings have sprung have much in common.

Now, there are certainly some “religious experiences” that need to be challenged, especially those which cause harm to others. That is why that even though I personally give a high priority to the evidence from religious experience, I don’t think, by itself, it is enough.

Which leads me to the second reason I am a God believer. This one does not engage science or philosophy. It is really not even open for scrutiny by either logic or reason. I am a believer because I long to be in relationship, not only with God, but with other people, who often become, for me, “God with skin on.”

I was struck by a line in last week’s Gospel lesson from John. Jesus is being questioned, and a group is demanding that he speak plainly, and tell them if he is the messiah or not. Jesus responded by saying “You do not believe because you do not belong…” We usually think that you believe, and then join a community of like-minded believers. Jesus turned that around. It is because we belong that we believe. The beliefs spring from being in community…in “communion”…with others.

That has certainly been my experience. It is from being forced to go against my natural inclination to be a bit of a hermit, and engage the larger community, that I have grown in my understanding of what it means to be a Christian. Beyond that, once I came to understand that it wasn’t enough for me to function in that community as a servant, but realized the need for me to allow others to serve me, that I began to see evidence for God in the faces of those all around me.

Also, it is through belonging to such a community that my experiences are given a very necessary check and balance. As I share what I have understood the meaning to be of a particular experience, the community, who has also had such experiences, can either offer words of encouragement or caution. Their collective insight can rein in the individual who might do something foolish or harmful because they understood that “God told me to do it.”

Experiences of God, both in the mystical experience and the community experience, are first and foremost about relationships, not right beliefs.

It's about relationships. It's about belonging.

I wonder how well our communities welcome everyone, regardless of their beliefs, or lack thereof, and make an effort to let them know that they belong, and are valued? Or, do we, perhaps unconsciously, have a hierarchy of belonging, with only those with the right beliefs (which usually means “beliefs that agree with me”) allowed into the inner circle? Something to think about.

Experience and belonging. Those are the keys to my belief in God. Now enough from me. Tell me why you believe, or disbelieve in God?

J.

Listening to Atheists

Today, I'm going to ramble a bit about a topic which has fascinated me over the last few months. The topic is understanding those who have no belief in God.

A couple of years ago, I finally admitted to myself that I really had little understanding of that view of reality. I've always had a rather strong belief in God, and assumed that most everyone else did as well. I was 19 before my God belief was ever seriously challenged.

Now, this doesn't mean I had never encountered any atheists before that. But, as is usually the case, they chose not to challenge me. Instead, they remained politely silent until the subject of the conversation shifted. Now the times have changed. With the popularity of authors like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, more and more atheists seem to be revealing themselves. It turns out that there are many more than we thought there were. Perhaps that has been the case for a long time, but we just didn't recognize it.

Why should this matter to me? One of the frustrations I run into a lot in discussions about "church growth" is the theory of "build it and they will come." If we just make our church more welcoming, more inclusive, etc. etc., then we'll bring folks in. And yes, that is true, to a point. You will attract those who perhaps have some background in Christianity but quit being active in church for one reason or another. And you may attract those who are "spiritual seekers," those open to the quest for that elusive "something more." And you may even draw in a few folks who like the music or the architecture.

But, if you're trying to attract those who have rarely been in a church, those whose experience of Christianity is limited to the stories of the bible and the televangelists, you're missing your target audience. They consider Christians to be engaging in "wishful thinking" at best, and as "delusional and dangerous" at worst. Regardless of what we do, to imagine these folks are going to wake up one Sunday and say "I think I'll go to church today" is indeed quite delusional, I'd say.

So what can we do? Well, I'm working on that. I've read of some ideas on how to engage this particular growing group of non-believers, but they didn't seem very convincing to me. So, I've been making an effort to do my homework. I've been trying to wrap my head around the mindset of those who have no belief in God. I've been attempting to listen, in the hopes of understanding.

I've had a few opportunities to seek such an understanding in my daily encounters with other people, but the majority of my conversations have happened online. As with most online conversations, you have to make a few assumptions before you can glean anything of value. First, if the person is using a nickname, you initially take everything with a grain of salt. You also recognize that the norms of civil discourse will often be thrown out the window. Folks are going to cuss you out, call you names, etc. That comes with the territory.

So, I've been talking with a few atheists for a few months now. I'm still trying to piece together the various things I've learned, but here's a few, in no particular order:

1. Most atheists, except the ones who are very young and just like to start flame wars, are highly educated. Not only do they know their science, they also know their bible. Unfortunately, there is often an underlying assumption that you cannot be both scientifically knowledgable and a Christian simultaneously. If you are a Christian, you haven't seriously studied the science. In other words, there is a bias that most Christians are "intellectually challenged." If we're not just plain dumb, we're too lazy to do the work necessary to find the "real" answers.

In listening, I've learned more than I ever wanted to know about evolution, as one example. That is another assumption among many atheists; all Christians are creationists, and deny evolution. As a result, I've heard many, many, many lectures of evolution. Sometimes I find the topic fascinating. But, as one who is not all that interested in the subject, after about the 25th time, I started to tune out.

In summary, the first point is that it is a mistake to consider atheists simply uninformed. The surprise is that is their perception of us theists! A side point is that once you get over that surprise, if your intention is sincerely to listen in order to understand, you'll recognize that you can learn a lot from these folks. That is cause to drop the assumption that you have the Truth that they need, and then move from a debate kind of conversation to a sincere form of dialogue.

Keep in mind, at this point, I'm not talking about conversions. That's another conversation. I'm just seeking understanding.

2. The assumption among many atheists that I've encountered is that all Christians believe the bible literally. Along with that is the notion that Christians see the bible as some kind of divine instruction manual. This is what leads to so many conversations about evolution. The assumption is if they can get a theist to question the creation stories in Genesis, or at least admit the world is more than a few thousand years old, then they have proved their point. The bible is in error, so everything in it no longer has authority.

According to the US Religious Landscape Survey, conducted in 2007 by Pew Forum, 33% of US Christians believe the bible literally. Among the mainline churches, that drops to 22%. Note that since this survey involved 35,000 interviews, we can assume it is somewhat accurate. When I point this statistic out to some atheists, they make yet another assumption, then claiming that I am throwing out the bible, and so cannot be a "real" Christian. That usually causes me to chuckle, as I've heard that very same claim more than a few times from the other side!

The positive aspect of such discussions, for me, is that it has encouraged me to wrestle with aspects of the bible that are rarely challenged in church circles. I don't believe that non-literalists throw out the bible. That is an inaccurate assumption, for reasons I'll get into eventually. But, I do think that most Christians tend to gloss over the bits of the bible that those outside the church find not only challenging, but downright repulsive. Consequently, we are usually unprepared when asked to respond to difficult parts of a text.

3. Claims of "supernatural" events really bother most atheists that I've talked with. To them, it is the same as claiming unicorns or Harry Potter are real. It is often referred to as the "God of the gaps." If you don't know how something happened, just fill in the blank with some supernatural act of God.

For the most part, the atheists who have a strong reaction to the supernatural are empiricists. If there is not testable evidence, then the thing does not exist. I've been asked to "show the evidence" hundreds of times. It is by far the the most common argument against a belief in God.

Now, this is where things get a bit difficult. These "empirical" arguments are not new. To a great degree, they are a rehashing of Plato and Aristotle. As I'm trying to stay in the vernacular here, and am admittedly not the most well informed source regarding either science or philosophy, I'm going to need the help of those who are more knowledgable about those disciplines. Please feel free to correct my fuzzy thinking or inaccurate paraphrasing in the comments.

Empiricism is a tool of science, but the two are not synonymous. Empiricism, to simplify the term, claims that knowledge is derived from sensory data. Although the scientific method includes the need of empirical evidence, it also incorporates the use of theoretical methods. A minor point, but since I'm now shifting to primarily talking about science, I felt that clarification to be important.

It is also important to always remember that what we call "science" is not some "thing" out there. It is a tool, a mental construct, fully idenitified as the "scientific method, a procedure to search for cause and effect relationships in nature. It is the best tool we have to gain knowledge of the physical world.

Forgetting that science is a tool can lead to some very silly statements, such as "science is wrong" or "science is bad." The method itself incorporates the "iterative process", used when new information or thinking is suggested, which would be cause to repeat steps of the method. So, claiming science is "wrong" assumes that the method arrives at some static absolute truth, which is not how it works. When claiming science is bad (nuclear power, climate change, etc), one has attached a moral value to the scientific method. The reality is that science is morally neutral. The only morality within science is that brought in by the scientists themselves, and those who use the results of their research.

Sometimes I encounter those who will claim that the scientific method is the only source of all knowledge. That is the point in which I begin to disagree. Show me the empiricial evidence for love, or beauty, or art or even goodness for that matter. No, I cannot agree that love is an emotion, or a chemical reaction. And my experience of beauty is not limited to symmetrically pleasing lines. While I agree that the scientific method is indeed the best tool we have to understand the physical world, it seems to me that it has limits.

That concludes my initial thoughts about my recent conversations with atheists. I was going to continue with some suggestions of what we might have to say in such conversations, but this post has already become much too long. Watch for the next installment, in which I'll attempt to say a bit about inductive logic, tacit knowledge, and the importance of community.

J.

Abp. Orombi (May Have) Resigned From the Joint Standing Committee

Abp. Henry Orombi has written a letter to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He includes the following pronouncements:

1. The Primates are the only authority he recognizes within the Anglican Communuion (although he seems to have no problem with attempting to sneak his own irregular deputies into meetings of the other Instruments).

2. He will not attend any meetings at which representatives from the Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada are present (well, we've heard this threat before, and in the end, it was all just bluster...so we'll see).

3. Anglicanism is a church of bishops (perhaps revealing his real problem with the Anglican Consultative Council and the Standing Committee? Heaven forbid that God speak through someone not wearing a purple shirt).

4. He stands "with my brother Primate, Bishop Mouneer Anis, in his courageous decision to resign from the Standing Committee" (is this a resignation? Perhaps. Or perhaps he is keeping his options open?).

5. He demands an immediate meeting of the Primates, and insists that TEC and the ACC be excluded.

When I consider this letter in its entirety, I am struck by its self-righteous and arrogant tone. Abp. Orombi blames everyone else for "the Communion...moving away further and further into darkness" and ignores any role he has played in the creation of the current chaos.

Perhaps Abp. Orombi really is so vain, and has surrounded himself only with those who encourage such vanity, resulting in him being oblivious to the role he has played in causing the current unpleasantness. Perhaps we can assist him in regaining a bit of Christian humility.

We might start back in 2004 with the role of Uganda in one of the earliest attempted thefts of property belonging to the Episcopal Church. St. James, Newport Beach was one of these early "trial balloon" attempts to steal property. The choice of that congregation brought to light the involvement of extremist groups such as the American Anglican Council and the Institute on Religion and Democracy.

When asked about these attempted thefts by Uganda, Abp. Orombi made the following statement:

..."Look at it this way: If a child is running away from home, the first question that must be asked is, why is he running away?" said Archbishop Henry Luke Orombi of Uganda, a vocal critic of the Episcopal Church, in a telephone interview. "We didn't look for them or hunt for them. We are responding to a need."

Such attempts to look so innocent fall flat if you look just a few inches under the surface.

For instance, in 2004, a memo entitled Draft Proposal for Overseas AEO was written by Alison Barfoot to those planning an attempted coup (the efforts of a small group of extremists to take over the Episcopal Church). It spells out quite clearly the method by which a congregation can be hijacked and put under the authority of an offshore bishop. Here's part of it:

... The question then becomes: Which offshore diocese? And how is that diocese and bishop selected? The proposed governing principle would be that these connections follow the line of Pre-existing relationships. If a priest does not already have a pre-existing relationship with an offshore bishop who is willing to participate in this process, then a match needs to be made...

Barfoot, who authored this proposal, became Abp. Orombi's international relations assistant that same year.

So, the author of a proposal to use offshore bishops becomes the assistant to the Primate of Uganda. When a parish with such celebrities as David Anderson and Howard Ahmanson connected to it decides to try to jump ship, who scoops them up? The Anglican Church of Uganda. Imagine that.

The title of "international relations assistant" is unusual, and seems a bit extravagant for Uganda, a nation that faces so many other challenges. But, it makes more sense when you consider that the position is funded by American extremists:

A retired bishop in Uganda explained, "Americans send money to the archbishop's office, who later distributes [it] to dioceses." The Rev. Aaron Mwesigye, the provincial secretary in the Ugandan Archbishop Henry Orombi's office, confirmed this, saying that U.S. conservatives had been "contributing towards the renumeration and salaries of provincial staff since 1998." He added that "American conservatives provide money to Africans not as donors but as development partners in mission."

Of course the assesments from the more than 44 Episcopal congregations that Abp. Orombi has attempted to steal over the years has also added more than a bit to his treasury.

If pressed on this matter, no doubt Abp. Orombi will claim he has "handed over" those 44 congregations to ACNA (an entity that some, like myself, do not recognize as a valid institution). Sorry, Abp. Orombi, but handing over stolen goods to one of your accomplices does not absolve you of any responsibility for your crimes.

Besides these blatant thefts, which have been strongly condemned in every statement released by the Instruments, we also have the matter of Abp. Orombi's refusal to engage in any way in the "listening process" recommended by the Windsor Report and the Primates. Instead, he has chosen to fan the flames of homophobia, as can be seen in his most recent"position paper" in response to the proposed Ugandan Kill the Gays legislation. Apparently, although Abp. Orombi hesitates to support the death penalty, he affirms the "solution" of tossing all gays and lesbians into prison. Such Christian compassion, eh?

He continues to believe bizarre theories like this:

...I am appalled to learn that the rumours we have heard for a long time about homosexual recruiting in our schools and amongst our youth are true. I am even more concerned that the practice is more widespread than we originally thought...

Yet, when confronted by the violence against gays and lesbians in Uganda, fueled by his bigoted rhetoric, Abp. Orombi struggles to find a response:

...Orombi said he had never heard of people being tortured because of their homosexuality, that when he learned about incidents – from the western media – he was at a loss to understand why he had not heard of them. He refused to accept that persecuting and torturing gay people was done openly in Uganda...

So far, Orombi has not condemned those acts.

So, Archbishop, if you must resign from the Standing Committee, please say so clearly. And while you're at it, why don't you swallow a dose of humility, recognize that your own most unChristian behavior has contributed to this current chaos, and resign from some of your other lofty offices as well. I'm sure much of the world would sigh with relief.

J.

An Easter Sermon

Sometime during the night before that first Easter Sunday, something happened that transformed the world. We refer to this event as the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. This morning we have heard the biblical account of this transformational event. And if you listen carefully to the words of our liturgy, you were also hear our theological understanding of this miraculous event. Through the resurrection of Jesus Christ, death, our ancient enemy has been cast down and trampled underfoot. We are assured that we too shall be raised up, and will be with God for all of eternity.

The biblical and theological understandings of what happened on this night are important. They give us a firm foundation on which to talk about the important implications of this transformational event.

However, sometimes I wonder how deeply our understanding of the resurrection actually impacts our day to day lives. So, tonight that’s what I want to talk about; how the resurrection can transform our daily lives.

To do that, rather than depend on scripture and theology, which as I mentioned you will fully receive within this liturgy, I want to zero in on our personal experiences of resurrection; the ways we die, and then are raised up as new beings in our daily lives.

In order to experience the resurrection as more than just some future event, in order to raised up into a new life in the here and now, there is first one difficult step that we have to be willing to take; we have to be willing to change.

William Auden wrote;

We would rather be ruined than changed
We would rather die in our dread
Than climb the cross of the moment
And see our illusions die.

Change can be difficult, and even frightening. It seems safer to just continue to respond to life; choosing this over that without a thought as to what drives our choices; what memories and images are stamped on our souls. But then, in the wee hours of the morning, we awaken to the feeling that something is missing, that something is not quite right. We feel that longing for the illusive "something more." It’s as if we want to go home, but we have forgotten the way.

But then, once in awhile, we catch sight of that elusive “something more.” Off in the distant, we glimpse the home we thought we lost. It is in these moments that we can be transformed, if we are willing to be changed. If we allow our illusions to die, something new may be raised up in their place.

Let me give you an example of what I’m talking about, by offering you a story from my own life.

A few years after we were married, my wife wanted to go to a church-sponsored weekend that was popular at the time. In order to go, I had to agree to attend a similar weekend for men. A weekend with a bunch of men who drove Volvos and talked exclusively of football and irrigation systems? I knew that this was a vision of hell that even Dante had been spared. Besides, I didn't have time for such foolishness. I was working full time on the loading dock, and taking classes at the University full time at night. And now I was supposed to drop everything to sit around and sing "Kum Baya" with a bunch of yuppies?

At the same time, this interest in the spiritual life on the part of my wife was a new and positive development. I went to the weekend, etching the marks of clawing fingernails the length of our driveway. Of course, I went for my wife. I knew I had no need for such drivel.

The event was actually worse than I expected. A series of long, boring talks interspersed with guitar music, clapping, laughter, and the periodic embrace of some weeping guy declaring, "I love ya, man!"

Two nights later, a meditation was offered in the darkened church. The only light was a small spot shining on the altar cross. At its conclusion, the men wandered out into the hall, where ice cream was being served. I could hear the laughter and the back slapping. I decided that the only way I was going to avoid these happy huggers was to just stay in the church.

Soon, I was alone. I knew they would let me stay there for as long as I wanted, if it appeared I was having some kind of "spiritual experience." So, I got on my knees, gazed on the cross, and assumed an "attitude of prayer." After a few minutes, I decided that it would be a shame to waste this opportunity, so I might as well go ahead and actually pray. I started out with praise and adoration, as I had been taught to do during my Pentecostal days, telling God how wonderful he was, and how much I loved him.

Then suddenly I stopped. What was I saying? Why should I declare my love for God? God could care less if I lived or died. The ugliness of my life was evidence of that. It was time to be honest. I now knew something about love, through being a husband and a father. That experience made it clear to me that I did not love God, and saw no indication that God loved me.

I got off my knees and sat in the pew. I still had to stay in the church, of course. I could hear a sing-along starting up in the next room. So, I just sat there, letting my mind wander, enjoying the quiet peacefulness of the place. Suddenly, in my mind's eye, I saw a neighbor who had lived next door to us when I was quite young. I saw her holding me as I cried. There was a vague memory of falling off my tricycle, or something similar. I had not thought of this woman for 25 years. Yet, here she was, in a vivid memory, floating across the screen before my mind's eye. What a strange thing.

The image shifted. I now saw my grandparents. Then a teacher from grade school who used to talk to me after class. Various aunts and uncles paraded by. Then the man who took me in and fed me when I was homeless. Next, a counselor from reform school. A professor from the University. Finally, I saw my wife, my daughters, and my newborn son.

I was on my knees again, although I didn't remember moving. What were all these images about? I wasn't sure. They all drew from me a similar feeling, however. The feeling of being loved; of being loved unconditionally.

It felt as if I were being held and slowly rocked, as a voice whispered, "Shh, it's okay now. I've always been here, and I've always loved you. I know you've been hurt. And I tried to show you that I cried with you, that I so deeply loved you. I tried to show you through all those you are remembering tonight."

I dared to believe this was real. This was a moment of transformation. I was loved. Even more importantly, I was worthy to be loved. That was over thirty years ago, yet rarely does a day pass when I don't remember that night; the night I stopped fighting to survive, and began to live.

You see, that night in that darkened church was a resurrection moment for me. My old way of viewing the world as a dark place full of disappointment and pain, was replaced by a new reality; the awareness that I was what I had always been intended to be, the beloved of God.

That resurrection moment changed everything. As I said, I dared to believe it was true. And that belief was based on more than simple wishful thinking. In that moment of glimpsing the depth of God’s love, I had discovered that elusive “something more” I had been seeking. I had found the way home.

In his book A Passion for Pilgrimage, Alan Jones explains it this way:

The memory that holy Week seeks to revive is one that lies deep within everyone. It is the memory of our beginnings. It is the memory that enables us to remember the painful things of our past without despair. The Great Memory is simply this; God has fallen in love with you and wants you to come home! Our first memory is God's love for us, and it is this memory that has been buried and repressed. Your first memory (if only you could get back to it) is that of being God's joy and delight. Why is it difficult to remember the joy of our beginnings in the heart of God? I wonder if it has something to do with our unwillingness to face the fact of our limited future? Memory and hope are intimately related. Perhaps we cannot recall the love that brought us into being in the first place, because we cannot imagine a love strong enough to pull us through the gates of death. I refuse to remember, because I dare not hope. I refuse to remember and I dare not hope, because I am frightened and angry because I will have to change.

Resurrection calls us to remember the love that brought us into being in the first place. Resurrection requires us to remember who we are, the beloved of God.

Since that night 30 years ago, I have had many resurrection moments. But, I would be misleading you if I did not admit that I’ve also had many moments, sometimes even days and weeks, when I’ve lost sight of God’s love.

What has allowed me to persevere in my Christian walk during those times when God’s love seemed so distant? My faith, derived from those previous experiences of resurrection.

St. Paul reminds us that all things work for good, for those who love God, for those who are called according to God’s purpose. All things work for good.

That means that even though I might experience life as a series of good times and bad times, as a progression of moments in which God seems close, and them seems so far away, I must constantly remind myself that God is moving with me through it all. And the movement of God is always from glory, to glory, redeeming all things for good. My response is to try to move with God, even if that means moving from faith to faith, trusting in God’s redemptive love.

God is moving among us right now. God is offering us the gift of a new life, the gift of resurrection. If we are willing to change, if we are willing to be transformed into a new creation, if we are willing to finally come home, say yes to God’s gift of grace, God’s unmerited favor, God’s redemptive love.

If we are willing to accept this gift, then we can move with God together. And together we can help those beyond these walls to find their way home.

Alleluia! Christ is risen!

J.

Understanding Anglicanism in Africa

Killing the Buddha is hosting an essay that is a "must read" for all Anglicans: Notes from the Tangled Anglican Web. The author, Mary-Jane Rubenstein, is Assistant Professor of Religion at Wesleyan University and the former Assistant Director of Religion and Public Life at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine. Professor Rubentstein helps us sort out some of the complex dynamics at play within Anglicanism in Africa.

There are a number of noteworthy nuggets to be found in this essay. I'll just mention a couple.

Professor Rubenstein refers to the work of Ifi Amadiume; Male Daughters, Female Husbands: Sex and Gender in African Society:

...Focusing on the small Igbo town of Nnobi, Amadiume locates pre-colonial power in the goddess Idemili, who possessed certain women in order to make them her ekwe, or human representatives. The women this goddess chose were the most economically successful in the community—those who were prominent in the marketplace. And the surest way for a woman to become prominent in the marketplace was to take a few wives. These wives would manage the house and care for the children while their “female husband” focused on economic and political life—and again, those women who succeeded often gained access to considerable religious authority as well, becoming spokeswomen of the goddess.

Unsurprisingly, the first thing the British did after they had made significant inroads into the region was to ban all worship of the goddess and to insist that all households be composed of one man, one woman, and their biological children. From that moment on, a priestess or female husband was out of a job. From one angle, then, what the Anglican world is witnessing is not the imposition of some “primitive” mindset upon a “modern” Anglo-American Church, but rather, a redeployment of the modern code of gender and church hierarchy imposed upon West and East Africans at the turn of the century...

Rubenstein also identifies, correctly in my opinion, what it is that yokes the two groups that some African Anglican leaders, like Peter Akinola of Nigeria, consider to be the biggest threat to the Church. What is the common thread in Ankinola's defense of the Church against the dual threats of Islam and gay rights? A lack of a sufficient amount of machismo among Anglicans:

...What seems to connect the threat of homosexuality to the threat of Islam, then, is a crisis of Christian masculinity. It is not clear which came first—anxiety over virulent Western homosexuals or anxiety over violent African Muslims, but the two threats seem to echo and intensify one another...

We have certainly seen the result of Peter Akinola's understanding of what it means to be a "strong man." In "defense of the Church," he encouraged the incarceration of all gays. His "strong man" response to Islam was to incite violence against Muslims and be implicated in at least one massacre.

Akinola has now retired, but it appears that his successor is going to carry on the tradition of identifying Islam and the gays as the primary threats to the Church.

As a sidenote, in his inaugural address, linked above, Abp. OKoh made this curious comment:

...Do not be afraid of being called homophobic. It is a term designed to close down any expression of a contrary view. Respond by accusing them of gunaphobia – an inordinate fear of women and of relationships with women...

I would agree with the Archbishop on this point. I believe a fear of the feminine is indeed at the root of much of our disagreements, but perhaps not in the way he imagined this fear is manifested. To quote Nancy Myer Hopkins:

"What is driving the intensity of our current church infighting?" Is it really just about what people do sexually with each other?

Probably not. A more likely reason for a significant amount of the negativism is that same-sex relationships violate the rules laid down by all patriarchal cultures about how men and women should behave in relationship to one another. The same rules also narrowly define acceptable relationships between people of the same sex.

Looking through this lens, we can see that the offenses pile up rapidly. If a lesbian woman does not need a man to satisfy her, protect her and keep her in line, the threat of the feminine is there; if a gay man is able to access the feminine side of his being, his every move can be considered suspect and an affront to many. If long-term relationships between two people of the same sex toss the age-old formulas attached to male dominance and female submission out the window, what are we left with? And if we must allow people who are partnered in this way to live openly and with our blessing -- so that we can't pretend that this is not happening -- how offensive is that? It is only offensive if we continue to cling to a patriarchal framework which keeps the feminine in her "proper" place...

But, I'm now straying away from Professor Rubenstein's essay, which contains many more ideas worthy of discussion. Go read it. What other points jumped out at you?

J.

Atonement Redux

Note: What follows is part of a piece that I wrote a few years ago. By request, I'm posting it again, with a few minor edits - J.

Since we are nearing Holy Week, it seems an appropriate time to talk about the theories of Atonement. It's a big topic, which I cannot possibly give the amount of time it deserves, but maybe I can offer you some thoughts to get your own conversations going.

For starters, let's form the question in a way that everyone, regardless of their theological or biblical background, can engage it. Here's the question: What is the significance of Jesus dying on the cross?

Here's a few background verses from scripture:

Isaiah 53:4-6, 10, 11 - "Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows; yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten by God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; upon him was the chastisement that made us whole, and with his stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD has laid on him the iniquity of us all [...] It was the will of the LORD to bruise him; he has put him to grief; when he makes himself an offering for sin [...] By his knowledge shall the righteous one, my servant, make many to be accounted righteous; and he shall bear their iniquities."

2 Corinthians 5:21 - "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God."

Galatians 3:10, 13 - "All who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who does not abide by all things written in the book of the law, and do them.' [...] Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us - for it is written, 'Cursed be every one who hangs on a tree'"

1 Peter 2:24 - "He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, that we might die to sin and live to righteousness."

1 Peter 3:18 - "For Christ also died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God"

Isaiah and Paul did not spell out exactly what they meant, which left it up to the early Church to figure out how to explain the cross.

What some claim was first taught was the Ransom Theory, which proposed that Jesus was a ransom paid to Satan to free all of humanity from sin. God tricked Satan, through the resurrection. Some claim (I'm hedging here on purpose; you'll understand why later on) that this was the teaching, with some variations, of Irenaeus, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, Augustine and Bernard of Clairvaux.

As you can imagine, some folks had some difficulties with this idea. It makes Satan out to be, to some degree, an equal to God, suggesting more than a bit of Dualism. The victory is won through an act of deception by God. Further reading here.

Next came Anselm's Satisfaction Theory, which was similar to the Ransom idea, but the price was paid to God, not Satan. As it arose in the 11th century, it is not surprising that it is somewhat derived from European feudal culture, in which a serf must honor their human lord who owned the land and controlled their lives. It is about honor. Since sin dishonors God, a price must be paid to restore God's honor. This is sometimes spoken of as satisfying the "ethical nature" or "justice" of God. This idea is also connected to the "sin sacrifice" found in the Hebrew scriptures.

Although fitting very well with some of Paul's writings, this theory has been troubling to many people, as it claims God requires a sacrifice for justice to be preserved. Although it removes the Dualism of the Ransom theory, it now depicts God as having some of the questionable qualities previously attributed to Satan. Read more here.

An early objection to Anselm's theory was offered by Peter Abelard, writing in the early 12th century, who is credited with presenting what is now known as the Moral Influence Theory. Basically, this is the idea that the life and death of Jesus Christ serves as a a moral example to us all. Through this example, we are moved to leave our sin and draw closer to God.

One difficulty with this theory is that there is a strong dependence on our own response. It leans very far towards the idea that we can save ourselves. Abelard was condemened as a heretic, by the way. Read more here

In the 16th century, the early reformers, including Luther and Calvin, developed a new twist to the Satisfaction Theory, which is now usually referred to as the Penal Substitution Theory. It is the dominant theory of Atonement among Protestants today. It takes Anselm's idea that God demands satisfaction a step further; insisting that God demands punishment. Read more here. Also, I found this discussion to be very helpful.

One last theory must be mentioned; Christus Victor. In 1931, Gustaf Aulén reintroduced the term. He argues that this was the theology of the atonement of the early Church Fathers, not the Ransom theory. "Ransom” is seen as a rescue or liberation of humanity from the slavery of sin. Some have suggested that this approach to Atonement is much more along the lines of what the Orthodox Church has always taught. It begins with the Incarnation; the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Death becomes part of the human experience. What has not been assumed has not been redeemed. Read more here.

Now, regarding my personal take. Having come from an Evangelical background, praying before a crucifix was new to me when I arrived at seminary. It is now my preferred setting. When I gaze upon the cross, I find myself powerfully moved. Sometimes it is simply the story of the Passion that evokes such strong emotions. Other times it is from remembering that God is not indifferent to human suffering, having experienced it. Sometimes it is from being reminded that I cannot be indifferent either. Recalling the suffering of those who are around me when before the cross leads to heartfelt intercessory prayer.

If you wanted something definitive regarding Atonement, sorry to disappoint you. Personally, I don't think there is one right answer. But I do agree with this segment of C. S. Lewis' opinion of the matter:

We are told that Christ was killed for us, that His death has washed out our sins, and that by dying He disabled death itself. That is the formula. That is Christianity. That is what has to be believed. Any theories we build up as to how Christ's death did all this are, in my view, quite secondary: mere plans or diagrams to be left alone if they do not help us, and, even if they do help us, not to be confused with the thing itself...

J.

Yes We Can

If you followed the health care debate this week, you may have caught Rep. John Boehner's final "HELL NO YOU CAN'T!" rant.

Here's the best response to the minority leader's ouburst I've seen yet:



Yes we can.

J.

Lambeth Response

In response to the news that Mary Glasspool has received the necessary consents to become bishop suffragan for Los Angeles, there has been a brief and somewhat vague statement from Lambeth Palace:

It is regrettable that the appeals from Anglican Communion bodies for continuing gracious restraint have not been heeded. Following the Los Angeles election in December the archbishop made clear that the outcome of the consent process would have important implications for the communion. The Standing Committee of the Anglican Communion reiterated these concerns in its December resolution which called for the existing moratoria to be upheld. Further consultation will now take place about the implications and consequences of this decision.

It may be time for some, including the occupants of Lambath Palace, to recall the heavy handed strategies employed by the House of Bishops, and our Presiding Bishop, to force the Deputies to pass the "existing moratoria."

That particularly unpleasant piece of legislation, known as resolution B033, defined the "existing moratoria" in this manner:

Resolved, that this Convention therefore call upon Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.

That restraint, gained by the emotional manipulation of the House of Deputies, is the only "existing moratoria" recognized by the Episcopal Church. The Windsor Report is a report, nothing more. Canterbury, the Primates and the ACC are free to make recomendations, but they are not able, under our polity, to define what constitutes appropriate "gracious restraint" nor to establish Communion-wide "moratoria." They do not have that authority.

The "existing moratoria" in TEC, defined by B033, was never the mind of the House of Deputies. It is questionable if it was even the mind of the House of Bishops. Reports of the discussion that led to the Bishops passing it suggests that there was some serious arm twisting being employed by Presiding Bishop Griswold.

The fact that B033 was never representative of the mind of TEC meeting in General Convention in 2006 became quite obvious at the next Convention in 2009, when resolution D025 passed both Houses with very little debate. The relevant section follows:

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention recognize that gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and are currently doing so in our midst; and be it further

Resolved, That the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, and that God's call to the ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church is a mystery which the Church attempts to discern for all people through our discernment processes acting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church...

Now, at the time of the passing of D025, I was in agreement with the opinion that D025 did not change anything; it did not rescind B033. As one example, that opinion was articulted by Bp. Epting:

The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ passage of resolution D025 does not overturn last General Convention’s call for care and “restraint.” That last resolution (B033) was never a “moratorium” on the ordination and consecration of gay and lesbian persons. It counseled care in approving any bishops whose “manner of life” would cause additional strain on the Anglican Communion.

Quite apart from the press’s (including Episcopal News Service) usual misunderstanding of such things, D025 simply re-asserts what has always been true — the ordination process in The Episcopal Church is governed by the Constitution and Canons of this church...

I find myself having to rethink some of those assumptions today.

First of all, we have to assume, based on the brief statement released from Lambeth Palace, that in Canterbury's mind, "gracious restraint" is indeed synonymous with "existing moratoria." We can play with the meaning all we want, but it seems clear to most people that the phrase "exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion" was indeed intended to be a moratorium in regards to the consecration of gay and lesbian persons.

So, D025 was necessary, in order to clearly state that such a reading of B033 was not the mind of the House of Bishops or the House of Deputies. But, as with all resolutions, it is still simply words, open to various interpretations.

That has all changed now. That a majority of Standing Committees and Bishops have given consent to the consecration of Bishop-elect Glasspool will once and for all put to rest any speculation regarding the interpretation of both B033 and D025.

The message from Lambeth concludes with these ominous words:

...Further consultation will now take place about the implications and consequences of this decision...

The consequences? How about a church that will not justify bigotry in the name of God? How about a church that strives to be a place for all the baptized? How about a church that seeks to raise up leaders that are clearly called by God, without placing artificial stumbling blocks in their way?

Yes, there will be consequences. Thanks be to God.

J.

Bishop-elect Glasspool Receives Consent From Bishops

Last week, we learned that Canon Mary Glasspool had received the necessary consents from the Standing Committees to become bishop suffragan of Los Angeles. Today we are informed that she has also received the necessary consents from the bishops with jurisdiction.

Here is a brief statement from Bishop-elect Glasspool:

It is a privilege to serve in a Church gathered around the life, ministry, death, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ. Our Church takes seriously its leadership, and so engages in a process whereby the lay and clerical members of Standing Committees of The Episcopal Church, as well as bishops from each of its dioceses, have the opportunity through prayer and discernment, to confirm the appropriateness of the election to leadership of each bishop. Thus, I am overjoyed that a majority of Standing Committees and bishops with jurisdiction have given their consent to the elections of both Bishops Suffragan of the Diocese of Los Angeles.

I am profoundly grateful for the many people - in Los Angeles, in Maryland, and around the world - who have given their prayers, love, and support during this time of discernment. I am also aware that not everyone rejoices in this election and consent, and will work, pray, and continue to extend my own hands and heart to bridge those gaps, and strengthen the bonds of affection among all people, in the Name of Jesus Christ. I am so very blessed to be working with Bishop Jon, Bishop-elect Diane, and the incredible people of the Diocese of Los Angeles; and I offer deep gratitude, as well, to Bishops Chester Talton and Sergio Carranza, whose Christ-centered leadership have moved the Church closer to God's Reign on earth.

From Integrity:

..."Integrity continues in its commitment to turn the resolutions of General Convention into realities on the ground for Episcopalians in every diocese," said the Reverend David Norgard, Integrity President. "Today's affirmation of the election of a superbly qualified candidate as a bishop in the Episcopal Church is good news not just for those who work for the fuller inclusion of the LGBT baptized, but for the whole church"...

From David "I like a good fight" Anderson, speaking for the AAC:

What this means is the majority of The Episcopal Church's leaders - down to the diocesan level throughout America - are exercising no restraint as requested by the Archbishop of Canterbury and the primates of the Anglican Communion. Despite pleas to the contrary, they have given their consent for a partnered lesbian to become a bishop, not just for Los Angeles, but for the whole church...

And yesterday, we heard these wise words from Mark Harris:

...The tipping point has already been reached. There will be all sorts of muttering about how the consents for Canon Glasspool or her actual ordination will spell the end of the Anglican Communion as we know it. It will not...

...In the world of supposedly newsworthy triumphs and defeats the election of Canon Glasspool was touted as yet another occasion for jumping up and down and yelling about the end of the "Anglican Communion as we know it." The call has sounded. Don't believe it this time, which ever way it goes for Canon Glasspool.

There are also those who will claim that in giving consents we will have proof that The Episcopal Church has "walked away" from the Anglican Communion. To the contrary, we will have proof that we have walked into its future, already here...

Congratulations, Bishop-elect Glasspool. Please know that you will be in my prayers.

Pray for the Church.

J.

Who Will Be The New Bishop of Alaska?

The candidates for Bishop of Alaska just completed their "fly about" around the diocese. The electing convention will begin on April 8.

Two of these candidates seem to me to be excellent choices. Look over their materials and watch the videos. Who do you think will be the next Bishop of Alaska?

In an attempt at full disclosure, I will confess that one of these candidates is a friend of mine. Consequently, I may be a bit bias in my choice of the top two candidates. Thus the reason for asking for your opinion.

Now, some of you know me well enough to identify which one is my friend. If so, please keep it to yourself for awhile, ok? Let's let a few others make their more objective opinion known first.

Alaska has its own unique blessings and challenges, which is going to require a particular skill set in their next spiritual leader. You may want to review their diocesan profile before making your choice.

So, let's hear your opinion of this set of candidates. Who do you think will be the next Bishop of Alaska?

J.

Mary Glasspool Receives Consents From Standing Committees

From the Diocese of Los Angeles:

...The Los Angeles Standing Committee reported March 10 that within the last 64 days it has received 61 consents needed to the election of Glasspool, and 78 consents to the election of Bruce. In each election a majority of 56 consents was needed from the counterpart Standing Committees of the 110 dioceses of the Episcopal Church...

We still have to hear from the bishops, but, according to Susan Russell: "...at this point what we DO know "anecdotally" is that MOST bishops and standing committees are coming out in alignment."

Is this significant? Well, for one thing, it will officially make B033 null and void. I know that some said resolutions passed at General Convention accomplished that, but if you listened carefully to the spin from quite a few of the bishops, they were rather clear that it would take an election to the episcopate, and the necessary consents, to thwart that particular distasteful bit of legislation.

Yes, we may have to hold our breath for a few more days, but I think it's a done deal. Thanks be to God!

Now it will be interesting to observe the reaction in other parts of the globe. I predict that there will be less heat than we might have anticipated. The shift of perspective on these matters over the last few years in the UK is but one example of why I am making such a prediction.

Watch for the announcement on the bishops' consents.

J.

MadPriest Trusts in God's Redemption

MadPriest, the owner of the well known OCICBW blog, has been informed that his contract will not be renewed at St. Francis. As of May, he will not have a cure.

Jonathan referred to this development in his sermon for the second Sunday of Lent. Ruth Gledhill provides us with a little more information (make sure you read the comments at Ruth's).

Then, of course the extremists had to chime in, making it all about some imaginary blessing service.

What I found particularly noteworthy was Jonathan's response to all of this, as voiced in his sermon:

...However, although I do not believe for a moment that any of this was God's doing, as a Christian and as a priest, I strongly believe that God will redeem it. To put it bluntly, God will bring something good out of the unhappiness. I have to accept that this may not be for my benefit. It may be the church, you people, who receive a blessing because of what you have been through. Maybe it will be the new vicar whose life will be fulfilled by his or her appointment at this church.

I am not Jesus. I don't claim to have anywhere near the fortitude and faith that he possessed. But I do use his example to inform my attitude towards my own predicament. I have my own Jerusalem to face and it will be painful. It has been painful. However, something of God will be made possible because of it. Just as something of God was made possible through Christ's suffering...

If you visit his blog, you will see that he has continued to add new posts, with his usual rapier wit and musical interludes. Apparently, he really does trust in God's redemptive power, and has not let this news turn him bitter.

I know I have something to learn from Jonathan's example. You see, at the moment, I'm still more than a bit disenchanted with the institutional church, for various reasons. And this development doesn't help.

There's thousands of blogs out there. Most are pretty much the same. But Jonathan set out, from the very beginning, to try to create something different. He has been constantly pushing the boundaries of what one can do with this medium. In the process, he has created a close online community. In my opinion, OCICBW is one of the most outstanding blogs currently on the net.

Yet, someone with such demonstrated creativity and community building skills cannot find a place in the institutional church? Unbelievable. But, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. Off the top of my head, I can think of at least four highly gifted people who are currently being held at arm's length by the Church because, for one reason or another, they are considered "a risk." What I want to know is why is that a bad thing?

If bishops and search committees continue to believe the wise thing to do is to "play it safe" and never take any risks (yes, unfortunately, being "creative" is considered "risky" in many Church circles), then they can expect a small return on their investment. And, if they continue to insist on running a Church as if it were a business, with "risk management" factors built into their personel choices, I'll take a pass, tyvm.

Give me the risk takers, those living on the edge. That's where you'll find the modern day prophets, those seeking the movement of God in this present moment, and not afraid to follow where it leads.

But, in the end, it does all come back to redemption, doesn't it? As I rave and grow more fierce and wild, I am reminded that my life has proven to me over and over again the truth in Paul's line: "We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose."

All things work for good.

Learning to see how God is constantly redeeming this world takes constant practice. It requires us to set aside our view of our lives as a series of good times and bad times, with shades of both in between. Instead, we seek out the movement of God. And the movement of God is always from glory to glory. Our task is to set aside our perceptions of what is going on, and then move with God, from faith, to faith, and so becomes partners in God’s work of redemption.

Yes, all will be redeemed. Maybe even that dear institution we call the Church. Imagine that.

Keep Jonathan in your prayers.

And pray for the Church.

J.

Canterbury and the Equality Bill

UPDATE:  Simon Sarmiento has generously offered some corrections to the following essay.  Since Simon has written extensively on this topic, we will consider him our "resident expert."  Rather than attempt to edit the original text, I am inserting Simon's corrections at the appropriate places.  Note that these insertions are not being made as "debate points."    I consider Simon's additions to be more accurate than my American attempt to comprehend the workings of the UK government.

J.
_____________________________________________

A couple of weeks ago, one of our readers pointed me to this article by Candace Chellew-Hodge. It is in reference to the Archbishop of Canterbury's Presidential Address to General Synod. Here's part of Candace's take on the speech:

...So, while Williams is so, so sorry for how he has undervalued the lives of gays and lesbians, he continues to oppose a new law that would recognize the value of that same slighted group - and dare to cloak his objection in religious doubletalk...

If you read Dr. Williams' address, I would say that is an accurate portrayal of what he said. He is sorry for the ugly way gays and lesbians have been treated by the Church, but will continue to advocate for the right to discriminate against them when it comes to hiring practices.

His argument is that once you start letting the government meddle in Church affairs, the right to religious freedom is in jeapordy. I'm not so sure that the reason for his apparent double-talk (I'm sorry, but reserve the right to make you suffer) is that simple.

The "new law" that Candace referred to, which Dr. Williams opposes, is known as the Equality Bill. Since Thinking Anglicans has done a fine job of following the Equality Bill, as well as the criticisms of Dr. Williams' Presidential Address, I was going to just skip this news item. However, as an American, who is rather unfamiliar with how the UK government works, I found that getting some understanding of the Equality Bill, and all its implications, required a bit of study. Perhaps a few other Americans might be interested in what I discovered.

The Equality Bill 2008-09 was introduction in the House of Commons on 24 April 24, 2009. The work that led to this bill had been initiated as early as 2005, and by some accounts, even earlier. It was described as an attempt to draw together the various pieces of non-discrimination legislation already on the books into one bill.

The part that was of concern among some of the Church members was the proposed language that attempted to specifically identify what particular positions within the Church would be exempt from anti-discrimination legislation. Previously, the wording of the exemption was quite vague, which allowed the Church to discriminate in most of their hiring practices.

(SS: No. The wording of the exemption in the 2003 Regulations is vague, but a legal precedent defining the narrow scope of the exemption arose when several trade unions challenged it in the High Court in 2004. This is commonly known as the Amicus case. And in any case the EU Employment Directive 2000/78/EC, which the UK regulations of 2003 implement, itself defines a narrow scope.)

Now, common sense suggests there are good reasons for this exemption. Obviously, a Church employee, especially in a leadership or teaching role, would need to be able to affirm the religious tradition they are representing. However, it is still rather ironic that the one institution that was allowed to continue to discriminate was the Church.

(SS: No. There is a confusion here between discrimination on grounds of Religion, and discrimination on other grounds (gender, race, age, disability, sexual orientation). The 2003 regulations relating to discrimination on the ground of Religion are separate now and in the Equality Bill are a separate clause (Schedule 9, Clause 3) still. There is (almost) no dispute surrounding them.

The big dispute was only about the wording of Schedule 9 Clause 2 which relates “only” to discrimination on gender (women clergy) marital status (divorced clergy) gender reassignment and sexual orientation. I am simplifying a little here.)

There was some concern voiced by members of the Church when the new Equality Bill was put forward, as it seemed to require new restrictions regarding hiring practices.
 

(SS: “Seemed” is the key word here. The UK Government has always claimed that it was not imposing any new restrictions, merely clarifying the existing restrictions. In legal terms, this is technically correct, because the EU Directive wording “trumps” whatever the UK legislation says. But the churches have never accepted this position, and have in fact always argued for total self-regulation in this area, see my recent article at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/10/rowan-williams-equality-bill)

It is at this point, as I reviewed various arguments against the Equality Bill, that I began to note references to the European Union. For instance, consider this news report:

...During the debate Conservative MP Mark Harper accused the European Commission of lobbying the House over the Equality Bill.

Mr Harper quoted the European Commission as saying: “We welcome the proposed Equality Bill and hope that it will come into force quickly”.

He responded: “The European Commission has no business telling the Parliament of the United Kingdom whether we should pass legislation.”

Last week the European Commission sent the UK Government a legal document, called a “reasoned opinion”, which argued that the UK needs to narrow the religious liberty safeguard in its employment laws.

The opinion is now in the public domain despite persistent attempts by the Government’s Equalities Office to keep it confidential.

Mr Harper went on to quote the Commission’s reasoned opinion which said: “The UK Government has informed the Commission that the new Equality Bill currently under discussion before the UK Parliament will amend this aspect of the law and bring UK law into line with the Directive”...

What does the EU have to do with any of this? Perhaps more than we might imagine.

In 1997, the Member States of the European Union approved the Treaty of Amsterdam. Article 13 of this new Treaty granted the EU new powers to act against discrimination on the grounds of sex, racial or ethnic origin, religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation. The United Kingdom was one of those Member States.

If a Member State breaks one of these non-discrimination laws, an 'infringement procedure' will be initiated. This "infringement procedure" has three steps. The Member State first receives a letter of "formal notice," and is given two months to respond. If the reply is not satisfactory, a "reasoned response" is sent. If there is still no change, the matter is sent to the European Court of Justice. The Court may impose a fine on the Member State for non-compliance.

According to a June 27, 2007 "press release from the European Commission (right sidebar pdf link), the UK received a "formal notice" that they were not in compliance. On November 20, 2009, the UK received a "reasoned opinion" from the EC, the second stage of legal action.

(SS:  This press release and associated links refers to a much earlier stage of the EC dialogue, and is not the current item.)

Some of the details regarding the specific areas of non-compliance are worth noting:

...In the reasoned opinion sent to the United Kingdom on discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in employment and occupation, the Commission pointed out that:

- there is no clear ban on 'instruction to discriminate' in national law and no clear appeals procedure in the case of disabled people;

- exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive...

Note that the only specific issue mentioned regarding "religious employers" was "sexual orientation."

So, from Brussell's point of view, the matter was the equal opportunity for employment within the Church for gay and lesbian members.

There are those who have suggested that government was hesitant to admit that some of the language of the Equality Bill was intended to meet the requirements of the European Commission, and so avoid a possible fine.

(SS: No. The issue here is not a fine, it is a court case to make the UK legislation conform to the Brussels legislation.)

There certainly is some confusion regarding the assurances offered by government that the new language did not change the previous exemptions granted churches, when it seems clear that there was indeed an attempt to be more specific regarding these exemptions in order to placate the EC. Beyond that, if Mr. Harper's accusation above is valid, that government did indeed assure the EC that the new Equality Bill would address their concerns, there is even more reason to believe that the government was intentionally misleading in their claim that no changes to the previous exemptions were being made.

Next came the reaction from the churches. The Bishop of Winchester called the bill "irrational and ignorant." The Archbishop of York claimed that Christianity was being wiped out of public life in the name of equality. Even the Pope weighed in, declaring that the Equality Bill violated natural law.

(SS: No. The Pope did not specify which legislation he was referring to. Although many people believed he was referring to the Equality Bill, it is much more likely in my view that he was referring to the 2007 Regulations which banned RC Adoption Agencies from discriminating against homosexual couples. See recent article by Clifford Longley at
http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/004240.html)

The rewording of the section of the Equality Bill governing church employment was defeated in the House of Lords, primarily due to the lack of support it received from all of the bishops, with one exception. When the bill returns to the House of Commons, we are told that the new wording will not be reintroduced.
 

(SS: No. All eight diocesan bishops voted against the government. Two retired bishops who have seats as Life Peers in their own right, also voted, one for the government (Harries) and one against (Carey).)

In other words, nothing will change. The Church will still be allowed to legally discriminate against gays and lesbians.

(SS:  There will be no change in the present law. This allows some “direct” discrimination but only in limited circumstances, which will remain as poorly defined as they are now. The current law does not allow any “indirect discrimination” e.g. by establishing a policy which it is easier for one group, e.g. male heterosexual clergy, to meet than for another, e.g. lesbian clergy.)

And the UK will be brought before the European Court of Justice for not conforming to the anti-discrimination laws of the EU.

Meanwhile, some Christians (including, it would seem, the Archbishop of Canterbury) are celebrating their "victory." Apparently, to them, if bigotry is still legal, it is also moral.

Personally, being granted the right to discriminate is not something I would feel like celebrating. And to claim that such discrimination is based on your "freedom of association" or your beliefs, or ethos, or to avoid "legal challenges" or any number of other code words seems so dishonest. If you are going to discriminate, just say plainly what group you wish to exclude.

But please, don't do it in the name of Christianity. Such behavior really turns folks away from Jesus.

We live in very strange times.

J.

General Synod to ACNA: "No, No and No"

For some reason there is quite a bit of confusion regarding what exactly happened regarding the motion calling for the Church of England to recognize the hybrid group of extremists known as ACNA.  We've got conflicting headlines all over the net.

Mark Harris offers us some assitance. He has posted a report from Brian Lewis, member of General Synod from the Diocese of Clemsford. Here's a brief excerpt:

...The original motion had asked the synod to express OUR desire to be in COMMUNION with ACNA.

The replacement recognised and affirmed THEIR desire to remain part of the Anglican FAMILY...

...Synod declined to express "a desire to be in Communion with ACNA". That matters. Questions not asked are one thing but when a question is asked and the answer is politely No Thank You that changes where you are...

Brian also describes two amendments; one that would have put the original language back into the motion and another that called for recognition of the orders of ACNA clergy. Both amendments were defeated.

That's three no votes for ACNA. How this can possibly be spun as any kind of a victory is beyond my comprehension. But, no doubt that's exactly what will continue to happen. After all, if you repeat lies often enough, some might start to believe them.

On a lighter note, do take a moment to appreciate Dave Walker's take on this matter.

J.

General Synod to Debate ACNA Motion

The motion and background paper can be found here. The wording of the motion is as follows:

That this Synod express the desire that the Church of England be in communion with the Anglican Church in North America

The numerous inaccuracies found in the background paper are addressed by Simon Sarmiento here.

The House of Bishops has offered an amendment:

That this Synod:

(a) recognise and affirm the desire of those who have formed the Anglican Church in North America to remain within the Anglican family;

(b) acknowledge that this aspiration, in respect both of relations with the Church of England and membership of the Anglican Communion, raises issues which the relevant authorities of each need to explore further; and

(c) invite the Archbishops to report further to the Synod in 2011.

If you want some background as to what this is all about, I recommend Jim Naughton's Follow the Money. We have also had numerous discussions about this group, known by different names over the years (AAC, Network, and now ACNA...same group, different labels). One summary post from 2005 is a good starting point for understanding this ongoing saga: A Closer Look at the Attempted Coup.

One of the most revealing documents from 2003 is the Chapman letter, which describes the plans of a small group of extremists within the Episcopal Church to ignore canon law and utilize "offshore bishops" to create a new Anglican presence in North America, with the intent of replacing the existing Episcopal Church. The Via Media groups offered the most concise explanation of the Chapman letter:

The letter speaks for itself. Property, not piety is keeping dissident parishes in the Episcopal Church. In the longer term, the AAC expects to use foreign intervention to trump American law and the Episcopal Church Constitution and Canons. Its leaders are assuring dissident parishes that the Anglican primates, a consultative body with no governing authority or standing in the United States, will ride to the rescue of Network parishes, negotiate property settlements and transfer the assets of 2.3-million-member church to a group representing perhaps a tenth of that body. The Chapman letter reveals the AAC's "realignment" for what it really is -- the overthrow of the Episcopal Church by extra-legal means.

And so here we are in 2010, with this long promised new Anglican body seeking recognition by the Church of England. They are depicted in the "background paper" as a poor, persecuted group of orthodox Anglicans seeking refuge from the evil beast known as TEC. Such a characterization would almost be humorous, except most likely some uninformed members of the Church of England might actually accept such a bizarre misrepresentation.

The presenting issue has been the role of our GLBT members within the Church. In some parts of the Anglican Communion, this debate continues. It is often masked by the extremists in the US as the claim that they are defending "the authority of scripture." The reality is that there are a number of divergent views on exactly what scripture has to say, if anything, on this matter. Personally, I've grown weary of such debates, but, if some of you are new to the argument, I recommend this resource, which briefly addresses the various verses from scripture that some consider relevant from both a conservative and a liberal point of view. As you can see, to claim the bible is "clear" on this matter is an extreme position.

Because TEC has moved towards the inclusion of all the baptized in the life of the Church, the movement to replace it with a "purified" Anglican presence in North America was launched. A popular tactic of this extremist group has been to align themselves with a foreign bishop (usually from Rwanda, Uganda, Nigeria or the Southern Cone), and then announce that they were no longer a part of the "apostate" Episcopal Church. Backed by their foreign bishop, many of these groups also claimed ownership of all assets, including their physical plant, contrary to canon law. These brazen border crossings by foreign bishops are, in my estimation, acts of larceny, and should be treated as such. But, apparently, calling a thief a thief is not the Anglican way. So, we have taken these...ummm..."misguided" congregations to court to attempt to regain those assets that have been wrongly acquired by these pillagers in purple. And now we have a few dioceses that have also decided that they cannot tolerate gay cooties in their church. Imagine that.

To get an even clearer view of this extremist group, consider this post by Scott Gunn; Tales from ACNA-Land: "Church Militant" Gets New Meaning, in which he notes this group's violent tendencies, summed up in his closing statement:

...So make no mistake. These people are out for blood. I wish I could say in confidence that this is just a figure of speech.

For those members of the Church of England who might be considering supporting this schismatic group of extremists, you may want to consider Battle for Britain by Tobias Haller:

...What would be done in the Church of England if a bishop from the convocation of Canterbury were to announce one day that he no longer considered himself to be under the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and had transferred his allegiance to the Archbishop of Tanzania, but intended to remain in his present location and exercise episcopal functions as a representative of his new archbishop...

Do make sure you read the whole thing.

There are other matters that members of the Church of England might want to consider as well. For instance, do keep in mind that ACNA is a melting pot of various groups that have claimed to be Anglican at one time or another. Some of them have not been in communion with Canterbury for some time. The Reformed Episcopal Church, of which ACNA proudly claims as contributing 130 congregations, has been out of communion with Canterbury for over a century. For those of a more Anglo-Catholic inclination, this would seem to me to be reason to at least pause to consider their holy orders, among other things. The REC is basically quite similar to the ELCA in regards to its relationship to the Anglican Communion. The long dialogue we had with the Lutherans before entering into full communion would suggest that some similar process might be necessary with the members of the REC before grafting them into the Anglican Communion.

No doubt this motion being considered by General Synod is simply another step in the overall plan of the extremists. If they are not recognized this time, at least they will get their cause placed in the limelight once again, and so will move a little closer, by small, incremental steps, towards their goal of becoming the replacement Anglican presence in North America.

But, of course. such limelight also allows their more unpleasant characteristics to come under closer scrutiny as well. May the members of the Church of England consider the full picture of this group before making any hasty decisions.

J.