The Liturgical Curmudgeon

Yet More on the Anglican Covenant

2010-12-06T10:59:00.000-06:00

Last week the General Synod of the Church of England voted by overwhelming majorities in each order to refer the Anglican Covenant to the dioceses for consideration before being returned to the Synod for final action, probably in 2012. For those of us who are convinced that the Anglican Covenant is Not A Good Idea, this is a disappointment. It should perhaps be noted that the approval and referral of the Covenant was due not so much to widespread enthusiasm for it — in the debate a number of members expressed their reservations about it — as to a desire to be loyal and supportive to the Archbishop of Canterbury, who has put significant personal investment into it. It is possible that in the diocesan synods, when more people have actually studied the document, there will be a greater resistance to it, and it is certainly possible that a majority of the dioceses will not recommend its final passage. I, however, am not sanguine about this. I think it is likely that the dioceses will say “Yes” for +Rowan’s sake, and that the General Synod will then say, “Well, you see? We’re all in favor of it!”

In the meantime, of course, as we know, the GAFCON folks (the Primates’ Council of the Global Anglican Future Conference/Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans) released their Oxford Statement from their October meeting, in which they said, “For the sake of Christ and of His Gospel we can no longer maintain the illusion of normalcy and so we join with other Primates from the Global South in declaring that we will not be present at the next Primates’ meeting to be held in Ireland. And while we acknowledge that the efforts to heal our brokenness through the introduction of an Anglican Covenant were well intentioned we have come to the conclusion the current text is fatally flawed and so support for this initiative is no longer appropriate.” It is thus fairly clear that whatever the hopes of Archbishop Williams and others for the Covenant may be, it isn’t going to work. (Actually, some of the GAFCON Primates had previously indicated their support for the Covenant; so we’ll see how that plays out.)

It remains to be seen what The Episcopal Church will do about the Anglican Covenant at the next General Convention in 2012. (One of the influencing factors may be whether the C of E General Synod takes action before our GC, and if so, what.) There are strong voices in opposition to the Covenant (with whom I identify myself), but also strong voices in its favor. I know no reason not to think that, at least in The Episcopal Church, these are all thoughtful people acting in conscience, who care about the integrity of The Episcopal Church and of the Anglican Communion. So, as I said, it remains to be seen.

Is the Anglican Communion dead in the water? Some are saying this. I don’t think so. Will the Anglican Communion be different in the future from what it has been? Yes, clearly. It already is. But it also seems clear to me that a large proportion of the Churches want to remain in communion with others, including with us. There are now, and there may be in the future, issues that Churches want to discuss, and should discuss, with each other. “Indaba” was a good idea, and it can happen wherever and whenever Churches want to make it happen. There will be a Communion of Churches who share a common heritage and work together in mission and ministry in the world. Will it be “a” or “the” Anglican Communion? It seems to me that this is up to Archbishop Williams. Despite the claimed titles of a large collection of schismatic churches over the years, and the self-assertion of a number of invaders at the present, “Anglican” is a franchise that belongs to the Archbishop of Canterbury, as first Primate of Ecclesia Anglicana (The Church of England). Although in the last half-century the Anglican Communion has acquired a good bit of bureaucratic clutter (some of it worthwhile, some of it not so much), the bottom line, it seems to me, is that a Church is a member of the Anglican Communion if its Bishops are invited by Canterbury to the Lambeth Conference. So it’s +Rowan’s call. (I consider being disinvited from bureaucratic meetings to be insulting and annoying, but in the long run irrelevant; the mission and ministry that needs to be done can be done anyway.)

In any case, I believe that The Episcopal Church should and must take the high road. I suggest adopting some basic positions.

1. We will not break, or suspend, or impair, or whine about, communion with any other Churches of the Anglican Communion. If any other Church chooses to break communion with us, that’s their decision, for which they are responsible. We are very sorry about it, but we will not be codependent. All will always be welcome at our altars and in shared mission and ministry.

2. We will always be willing to discuss, in an “indaba” or other format, any issues or concerns that other Churches may have with us, or we with them.

3. The Churches and Dioceses of the Anglican Communion, and their Primates and Bishops, will always be in our prayers, through the Anglican Cycle of Prayer or other appropriate means.

4. We will continue to strive to support and share in the mission and ministry of the Gospel of Christ anywhere in the world to the extent that we are able and are invited to do so. It is our wish to maintain and to expand our large network of Companion Dioceses.

5. We will continue to seek closer cooperation and, as appropriate, full communion with non-Anglican Churches.

We presently are in full communion with the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and with the Moravian Church in North America. Discussions toward full communion are underway with the United Methodist Church and the Presbyterian Church (USA). Like Anglican Churches generally, we are in full communion with the Old Catholic Churches in Europe (the Union of Utrecht), the Mar Thoma Syrian Church of India, and the Philippine Independent Church. (We grieve that we are no longer in communion with the Polish National Catholic Church in the United States; this was terminated in 1978 by the PNCC over the ordination of women to the priesthood.) The Episcopal Church is not a signatory to the Porvoo Agreement, which establishes communion between the Anglican Churches in the Atlantic Isles and in the Iberian Peninsula, and most Lutheran Churches in the Baltic Sea area and Iceland; we were not invited to do so, as Porvoo is a geographically regional Communion limited to (mostly) northern Europe. (Should the Porvoo Communion wish to expand across the Atlantic, I am sure we would consider it.)

I trust that it is clear that my previous post, “The Anglican Communion — Another Approach,” was seriously tongue-in-cheek!

The Anglican Covenant -- Another Approach

2010-11-22T13:24:00.003-06:00

As highly-recommended prior reading, I suggest Jim Naughton’s article on The Lead at the Episcopal Café:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/lead/anglican_covenant/the_anglican_covenant_a_tool_f.html

It’s also always worthwhile to check out Thinking Anglicans, which is keeping good track of what’s going on:

http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/

So let’s try another approach to the Anglican Covenant. Let’s just sign the damn thing!

Having done so, then let’s send a delegation to show up first thing the next morning for Matins at Lambeth Chapel and present a list of questions to Archbishop Rowan, or Canon Kenneth, or whoever we can find up and about. (Yes, I know that they aren’t really the people to whom this would need to go, but they are closer at hand than the InquiSCACion, and it would serve as notice.)

As a covenanting Church, we would have the right and the duty to raise questions about the compatibility of an action by another covenanting Church with the Covenant. (4.2.3)

(1) The Church of Uganda appears to support, perhaps weakly, perhaps not so weakly, proposals by the Ugandan Government to strengthen criminal liability for consensual adult homosexual activities, even to the point of a capital offense. It is not suggested that the Church of Uganda should legitimize or bless same-sex unions, which Lambeth 1998.I.10.e cannot advise (n.b.), but tolerating without protest the gross violation of human civil rights appears to be contrary to Lambeth 1998.I.10.c&d. Is this compatible with the Covenant?

(2) The Churches of Uganda (as above), Rwanda, and Nigeria appear to endorse and encourage hatefulness and discrimination against persons with homosexual orientation, and a refusal to “listen to their experience.” Does not appeal to Lambeth 1998 I.10.e entail acceptance and compliance with I.10.c&d? Is this compatible with the Covenant?

(3) The Churches of Uganda, Rwanda, Nigeria, and the Southern Cone of the Americas have been active in fomenting schism within The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada. Is this compatible with the Covenant 3.1.2?

(4) The Primates of a number of Churches, including (I believe) Kenya, Nigeria, Rwanda, and Uganda have refused to receive Communion at the same Eucharist with Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori and Archbishop Hiltz. We understand that the Archbishop of the Province of the Indian Ocean has suggested that Primates may wish to absent themselves from any Primates meeting attended by Bishop Jefferts Schori or Archbishop Hiltz. Is this compatible with the Covenant 3.1.2 and 3.2.6?

(5) The Anglican Church of Australia is apparently tolerating a significant breach of Catholic Order by the Diocese of Sydney, regarding who may be authorized to preside at the Eucharist. Is this compatible with the Covenant 1.1.2 and 1.2.1? (To this the Anglican Church of Australia might well respond, “Sydney is our problem, not yours! We’ll deal with it! Bug off, Yanks!” To which we might well reply, “Point taken. Question withdrawn. Apologies.”)

(6) The Church of England is making a great fool of itself over the issue of admitting women to election/appointment/consecration to the episcopate. It is arguable that there may be some cultures in which Churches of the Anglican Communion minister in which the priesthood or the episcopate would not yet be an appropriate ministry for women. England is not one of them. (Neither is Uruguay, which may represent a related but somewhat different issue.) Is this compatible with the Covenant 2.2.2.d?

(7) Somewhat related to (6): It has been noted that women bishops from other Churches in the Anglican Communion are not permitted to exercise their episcopal ministry in the Church of England. (This has come to be referred to as “carrying your hat in your hand.”) First of all, it is clear that no bishop, priest, or deacon may exercise his or her ministry in another Church (and strictly speaking, even in another Diocese) without the permission of the local ordinary. Specifically, no bishop may exercise episcopal functions (e.g., confirmation and ordination) in another diocese without the specific permission, and at the specific request, of the diocesan bishop. However, in the past this has not been a major problem in the Church of England regarding visiting male bishops. Is this compatible with the Covenant 3.1.2 and 2.2.2.d?

Actually, upon reflection, I don’t think this alternate approach is a very good one. Never mind.

Let’s just deep-six the Covenant instead.

(Are there parts of the Covenant that are okay? Yes, albeit probably superfluous. But Section Four is unacceptable and Section Three has real problems. Tobias Haller suggests that we throw out the Covenant itself and just keep the Introduction, which I think is a promising idea!)

http://jintoku.blogspot.com/2010/11/introduction-is-sufficient.html

The Anglican Covenant, or, Haven’t We Been Here Before?

2010-11-18T16:18:00.003-06:00

Although I bought the book a couple or three years ago, it has been sitting on my shelf until this week: Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln, by American historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. It’s an account of the men who were rivals for the Presidential nomination in 1860 and who became members of Lincoln’s cabinet during the Civil War: William H. Seward, Salmon P. Chase, and Edward Bates. (Incidentally, Chase was the nephew of the Right Rev. Philander Chase, who was Bishop of Ohio and then of Illinois during the second quarter of the nineteenth century, and whom The Episcopal Church commemorates on September 22. Goodwin refers to him in passing, but obviously doesn’t like him very much.) I’m still early in the book — I’ve just finished the chapter about the 1850s. What I found very interesting, and I hadn’t really been aware of it before, was how the issue of slavery dominated American politics in the antebellum years. We often pick up on Lincoln’s stated position early in his presidency: “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” That is, the Civil War was, at least initially, really about preserving the Union and not primarily about slavery. But the years leading up to 1860 make very clear that, no, it really was all about slavery. The South had been threatening secession for many years, and slavery was the issue. The strengthening of the Fugitive Slave Law by the Compromise of 1850, and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, made the Civil War inevitable.

“Gee,” I thought as I was reading these early chapters of Goodwin’s book, “this sounds a little familiar.” Are we not, in our Communion, dealing with issues of threatened secession over what we perceive as a major moral issue? Might we not think that +Rowan Williams is desperately trying to “save the Communion”? And would it be possible to save the Communion by moral compromise? (Whichever side of our current issue one may be on — and we might remember that there were self-proclaimed committed American Christians on both sides of the slavery issue in the nineteenth century.) Please let me be clear — I am not suggesting that there are any simple or immediate parallels between the United States in the middle of the nineteenth century and the Anglican Communion at the beginning of the twenty-first century. I am not comparing +Rowan Williams to Lincoln (though that might be an interesting exercise in “compare and contrast”!), nor do I know whether the Global South, or rather, more specifically the GAFCON gang, or on the other hand The Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada, can be identified in any respect with either the Northern or the Southern States. It seems to me much more complex than that. Nevertheless, from a wider perspective, I am caught by the notion, “haven’t we been here before?”

I think secession or schism is a very real possibility — in fact in many respects it already exists. (Though whatever one may think about The Episcopal Church, we have not broken communion with anybody.) I certainly don’t suggest that killing hundreds of thousands of young men on the battlefield is a way to resolve our current strife! What if the North had just let the South go? In fact, an agricultural economy (primarily cotton) based upon slave labor had no long-term future, and southern American slavery would eventually have died of its own crushing weight, though at the cost of much human misery and injustice in the meantime. I would also say that homophobia, misogyny, and fundamentalism have no long-term future in faithful Christianity, anywhere in the world. But I do think we need to ask the question: at what price must the Anglican Communion be saved?

Is a puzzlement. Just asking.

I'm Back....

2010-11-18T16:14:00.001-06:00

Well, this poor blog has been sitting abandoned for a year. During that time I’m sure that the four or five readers I once had have long since gone off to more productive venues. But I’m going to try to re-fire it up, and perhaps a few folks will discover or rediscover it! I still won’t moderate comments, but if I think your comment is dumb, I will ignore it, and if it is really annoying, I may delete it. (“Dumb” and “annoying” does not simply mean “disagrees with me” — I’m perfectly happy, or at least willing, to be disagreed with.)

And yes, in the midst of ranting and raving about the Anglican Covenant, I may also put in some Live in HD Opera reviews. Good season so far. I liked Rheingold, even though I’m not really a Wagner fan. Very good production, although the set is a little bizarre. (But then, sets for the Ring always seem to be either bizarre or boring. Bizarre is better.) One should always prepare for a production of a Ring opera by listening again to Anna Russell, just for a reminder that the music is outstanding and the story is really dumb.

I had never seen Boris Godunov before. Very well done. I liked it. I wasn’t always quite sure exactly what the hell was going on, but….!

Nor had I seen Don Pasquale, though I had heard it. I thought it was splendid, and I enjoyed it a lot. Netrebko, whom we usually see in more “serious” roles, is a superb comic actress. One of the advantages of the Live in HD format is that we really get to see the singers’ faces, and most of them are very good.

Even More Opera Review

2009-11-20T15:03:00.003-06:00

As if I hadn't seen Turandot enough this year (see my posts for July 8 & 14), the other night I went to see the Encore presentation of Turandot on the Met's Live in HD series at my local movie house. (I didn't see it on its truly "live" presentation on November 7 because I was watching the Iowa-Northwestern game on TV. First things first.) I thought it was a great production. Maria Guleghina was very fine as the princess Turandot (some of her high notes were a bit approximate, but this is a role in which a dramatic soprano has to work pretty hard). Marcello Giordani was also very good, if perhaps a bit wooden, as Calaf. He got through "Nessun dorma" pretty well, if not quite superbly; the Met audience then went bananas, which I thought was a little indiscriminate. I was quite impressed by Marina Poplavskaya's Liu; I had never seen/heard her before, and she sang and acted the role very well. Samuel Ramey (Timur, the old blind king, father of Calaf) was as usual very good in a role which is not really very big. I really liked Ping, Pang and Pong (I don't have the singers' names at hand), who put some depth into what are often merely stock characters. Perhaps the most notable thing was Franco Zeffirelli's production, which was Zeffirelli all the way. Very imaginative and elaborate choreography. However, this opera still has the dumbest plot in the repertoire, but in this case the Zeffirelli production (together with Puccini's music) helps one not to notice as much. It reminded me that Toscanini was probably right at the opera's premiere at Milan in 1926: he stopped the performance after the death of Liu, which was the point at which Puccini had died without completing Act III. All downhill from there.

But my enjoyment of Zeffirelli's over-the-top production reminded me of the great fuss over the Met's new production of Tosca last month, by Luc Bondy. I rather liked it, actually, but it's true that it had several flaws that sometime down the line (when Bondy isn't looking) should be corrected. (The floozies in Scarpia's apartment at the beginning of Act II were a seriously wrong move.) Many critics were comparing the Bondy production to the previous one, which was another Zeffirelli-all-the-way. The problem with the Zeffirelli Tosca was that the sets (Sant' Andrea Della Valle, the Palazzo Farnese, and the Castel Sant' Angelo) overwhelmed the action of the opera, which is actually a fairly intimate melodrama. Oh well. I thought Mattila was very good, but she's not Callas. Nor will anyone ever be again....

What the Bible Says About Health Care

2009-08-12T14:34:00.001-05:00

A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half dead. Now by chance a priest and a Levite were going down that road, and when they saw him, they said to him, “It is not the temple’s obligation to provide health care for people. That would be socialized medicine.” And they passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling came near him, and when he saw him he was moved with pity. He went to him and said, “It is too bad that you are not a Samaritan. In Samaria we have universal health care coverage. But as a Judean you are expected to provide for your own medical care privately. Good luck!” (Luke 10:30-34)

As [Jesus] approached Jericho, a blind man was sitting by the roadside begging. When he heard a crowd doing by, he asked what was happening. They told him, “Jesus of Nazareth is passing by.” Then he shouted, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” …Jesus stood still and ordered the man to be brought to him, and when he came near, he asked him, “What do you want me to do for you?” He said, “Lord, let me see again.” Jesus said to him, “Have you paid your medical insurance premiums?” (Luke 18:35-38,40-42)

One day, as we were going to the place of prayer, we met a slave-girl who had a spirit of divination and brought her owners a great deal of money by fortune-telling. While she followed Paul and us, she would cry out, “These men are servants of the Most High God, who proclaim to you a way of salvation.” She kept doing this for many days. But Paul, very much annoyed, turned and said to the spirit, “We would like to help this girl, but apparently her owners’ health insurance policy does not cover treatment for mental illness. And we certainly would not want to interfere with free enterprise. I’m afraid there is nothing we can do.” ( Acts 16:16-18)

The New Great Generation

2009-08-10T17:06:00.003-05:00

Richard Doak, a retired editor at the Des Moines Register, posted an Op-Ed in the Sunday Register yesterday (August 9, 2009) entitled “Next great generation may be on its way up.” I think he’s right, or at least I hope so. I encourage folks to read it.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20090809/OPINION01/908090317/1166

Doak argues that the current student generation has, on the whole, a much different way of thinking about the world than the previous generation. They aren’t rebels, a la the sixties; they generally get along well with their parents. But they don’t think like them. The government is not a bugaboo to them. They don’t oppose taxes if they will be well spent to solve real problems. They are concerned about the environment. They are not opposed to immigrants. They have little interest in the “culture wars.” Of particular interest to those of us in “the Episcopal Summer of Our Discontent,” Doak writes:

“In general, today’s young adults are tolerant, accepting racial equality and homosexuality in greater numbers than their elders. Same-sex marriage might make the blood boil of Baby Boom conservatives, but to most young people it’s simply a non-issue.”

The downside of all this is that “religion appears to be less important in the lives of millennials, as a group, than it is in the lives of older Americans.” (Gee, I wonder why that might be?) Doak notes, as have others, that the rising generation of evangelical Christians is more concerned with the stewardship of God’s earth and the needs of the poor than with the moralistic posturing of their elders. (Actually reading the Bible can do that to you!) But for many young people, the institutional church simply has very little to do with their own experience of life and its concerns — and indeed is often hostile to it.

Obviously the rising generation should be a major concern for our mission and evangelism. But what is needed is not gimmicks to attract and entertain them, but serious attention to their own best commitments and values. I’ve noted lately, in the context of the recent General Convention, that the “reasserters” — whether schismatic or (so far) yet in the fold — are moaning and whining about how the Episcopal Church is swirling the drain, all because of the gays (or ordained women, or revised liturgy, or civil rights, or whatever). Right. Does anyone really think that ACNA or any other church based upon “no gay cooties” will still be around a generation from now? (Gee, that’s sure a church I’d like to join!) Actually, it probably will be, at least in remnants. Baptismal regeneration was a big deal 140 years ago, and the Reformed Episcopal Church is still here.

+Rowan, are you paying any attention at all to this stuff?

More Opera Review

2009-07-14T14:55:00.004-05:00

If one performance of Turandot is good, two are better. The other day I watched the video of the production at The Forbidden City of Beijing, conducted by Zubin Mehta (1998, I think). A brilliant and fascinating production. The principals were triple-cast (since the production was performed for nine straight nights); this particular cast included Giovanna Casolla in the title role (very very good, in a role that rarely descends out of the stratosphere), Barbara Frittoli as Liu (wonderful), and Russian tenor Sergej Larin as Calaf. A superb voice, in some ways reminiscent of Pavarotti, except that Pavarotti was a better actor (!). (In an interview, Larin said this was probably the largest stage he had ever performed on. Nevertheless, he just stood in the middle of it like a stump.) And Calaf was still a jerk. A rather different take on Ping, Pang and Pong, which was interesting.

Several other productions are available on DVD. I'll have to check them out.

Opera Review

2009-07-08T12:43:00.003-05:00

Here's another utterly non-theological comment:

The other day I was watching a DVD of the Australian Opera's production of Puccini's Turandot. From the early 1990's, I think. The production itself is (was) splendid. The performances were very good (not quite great, but very good; I think the cast was Australian, but I didn't recognize any of them). Puccini's music, of course, is absolutely wonderful. But surely that has got to be the dumbest plot in the whole of the standard operatic repertoire. (And I'm including the cycle The Ring of the Nibelungs, which is pretty dumb. Great music, though much too long -- Wagner had no self-discipline -- but a pretty dumb plot.) The only character in Turandot who is likeable at all is the slave girl Liu, and she ends up killing herself (well, I probably would too, in the circumstances). The old king Timur is dumb as a box of rocks -- no wonder he was dethroned. Prince Calaf is even more of a jerk than B. F. Pinkerton, and that's saying a lot. Turandot herself, of course, desperately needs to get over herself, and I doubt that falling for Calaf is going to do the job.

Where was Mao Zedong when the people of Peking (Beijing) really needed him?

Letters to The Living Church

2009-07-08T10:59:00.004-05:00

One of the really nice things about The Living Church is that it provides so many opportunities to write whining Letters to the Editor. Well, I've had mine for this quarter (and editor David Kalvelage is always very gracious about giving me some whining space every few months); it appeared in the July 5 issue, asking why the Episcopalians for Traditional Faith were pushing the 1928 Prayer Book to celebrate Independence Day. (And that makes sense because....?)

I think David is a fair man (I often don't agree with him, but I think he's a fair man) and therefore it's not appropriate that he give me more space in the TLC Letters column so soon. But this doesn't mean I don't have more whining to share.

1. In the current (July 5) issue, the Episcopalians for Traditional Faith are at it again, this time with a full page ad encouraging couples to choose their wedding ceremony from the 1928 Prayer Book (pages 300-301). And why would that be, do you suppose? Well, in case we missed their point, they use a text highlighter on page 301: "...this Woman to thy wedded wife" and "...this Man to thy wedded husband." Aha. Well, never mind that the 1979 Prayer Book uses almost exactly the same words (page 424). Apparently the point is that the 1928 BCP is the most certain way that folks can proclaim, "No Gay Cooties!" I never knew that about the '28 book, and I grew up with it. But at least we now see what the issue really is. Not that there was really any doubt, I guess. ("Bash a homo! Use the 1928 Prayer Book!")

2. In a response to Bishop Rowthorn's very good article about the proposed expansion of Lesser Feasts and Fasts (now to be titled Holy Women, Holy Men -- Celebrating the Saints), Mr. Kalvelage thinks it's too much, particularly since a number of the persons proposed for commemoration are "unfamiliar to Episcopalians and other Anglicans." Indeed. I unearthed my original copy of Lesser Feasts and Fasts (1963, when we were still using the you-know-which Prayer Book) and looked through the Calendar, which even then included the majority of the commemorations in the current LFF. Except that in 1963 we had never heard of a lot of them; at least I suspect most Episcopalians had never heard of them. But we know them now, and remember them with joy and thanks to God for their witness. And maybe this is the point, yes? Do we really need to be so stingy about how many of God's Holy Ones we commemorate? (And after all, these have all always been optional in any case.)

3. In an adjacent editorial, Mr. Kalvelage argues in opposition to the proposed approval by General Convention of any formal blessing of committed same-sex relationships. He writes (TLC, July 5, page 21): "Such action is contrary to 2,000 years of Christian tradition, and would damage even further The Episcopal Church's already tenuous relationship with much of the rest of the Anglican Communion. Approval of same-gender [sic] blessings also would hasten the departure of conservative Episcopalians from a steadily declining church. In addition, as we have pointed out on numerous occasions, these innovations are non-scriptural." I believe Mr. Kalvelage is a decent and honest man, and no more homophobic than is the case with most of us Straight Guys. But he is missing the point here. (a) We need to be a little careful about "2,000 years of Christian tradition," especially about marriage. Although there is little evidence of committed same-sex relationships before the modern era, it's pretty clear that during much of Christian history, marital sexuality was not very well regarded except as a way to make babies. ("Just close your eyes and think of England.") (b) Please explain to me, David, why we should continue to marginalize our devout and devoted gay and lesbian couples in order not to offend Peter Akinola. (c) Are you suggesting that if we revert to gay-bashing, we're going to recover and keep all these "conservative" Episcopalians who are otherwise departing? (d) Non-scriptural innovations? Episcopalians/Anglicans? Oh, surely not! (Does the word "divorce" strike a familiar note?)

Enough for now....

Political Note of the Day

2009-06-30T13:55:00.005-05:00

(This has nothing to do with Liturgy, or even with Curmudgeonhood, though I guess it does have to do with God, because everything has to do with God:)

I see that the Minnesota Supreme Court has just ruled that Al Franken has defeated Norm Coleman for election as United States Senator from Minnesota. (The very very close election has been in the courts since last November.)

The United States Senate will be a much more interesting place for the next six years....

Thought for the Day

2009-06-25T16:09:00.002-05:00

On your keyboard, think of a line connecting PC. Then think of a line connecting BS. The lines don't go in the same direction, but they do cross.

Comments on the Office readings

2009-06-23T19:29:00.002-05:00

One of the things that some of us have discovered over the years, by God’s grace, is that we do not become familiar with the Bible just by reading it once or twice. One of the blessings of the Daily Office is that after we have worked our way through the office lectionary for twenty or thirty for forty years, we still keep finding new insights in texts that we thought we “already knew.” (The same would be true for those who may not formally pray the daily office but who do have a system of reading through the Bible once a year, or however often.)

Well, in the Daily Office these days we (at least those of us using the American BCP!) have been working our way into 1 Samuel (always a joy). The Philistines have captured the Ark of God, and in the process the priest Eli’s sons Hophni and Phinehas were killed in battle. When Eli heard the news he fell over backward and broke his neck. We saw all that coming, of course. The Lord was ticked that the Ark of God was in Philistine hands, and knocked over the statue of Dagon in the temple at Ashdod and struck the people with tumors (possibly the bubonic plague, which is spread by flea-infested rats, possibly the “mice” referred to in chapter 6). The plague followed the Ark from Ashdod to Gath to Ekron (and apparently to Ashkelon and Gaza as well), and the Philistines finally caught on that keeping the Ark of God was Not A Good Idea. So they sent the Ark back to the Israelites. A wonderful story!

Okay, now I would be interested to hear from the folks who are very much into a strictly literal interpretation of the whole of the Bible: Just what are we to make of this story?

(Remember Ichabod Crane, from Washington Irving’s “The Legend of Sleepy Hollow”? I remember him especially from the 1949 Disney film. The name “Ichabod” means something like “the glory is gone,” and the Biblical Ichabod was the son of Phinehas, born just as the news of the death of his father, his uncle, and his grandfather, and the capture of the Ark, arrived at Shiloh. Ichabod’s mother named him, and then died following childbirth. “Ichabod” is obviously not a very auspicious name! Although apparently a lot of schools in upstate New York are named for Ichabod Crane. But I digress.)

A canticle later we read from the 5th chapter of the Acts of the Apostles, about the counsel of Gamaliel regarding how to deal with Peter and the apostles. “So in the present case, I tell you, keep away from these men and let them alone; because if this plan or this undertaking is of human origin, it will fail; but if it is of God, you will not be able to overthrow them.” In regard to the current dissensions in the Episcopal Church, there might be some argument as to which side is who, but in any case Gamaliel gives good advice: “Well, let’s just see.” I don’t suggest that anyone should be flogged, and certainly not that anyone be ordered not to speak in the name of Jesus, but I also think no one should be permitted to walk away with the church silver.

One of the things that I find interesting is some of the more traditional folks, noting that membership/attendance in the Episcopal Church is going down the toilet (that’s true in some places, not true in others), blames it all on selling out to the “homosexual agenda.” (I’m not quite sure just what that “agenda” is. I don’t think “Just give us a fair break” constitutes an “agenda.”) In the past, of course, the reasons why our membership has been going down the toilet for the last forty years have included getting involved in civil rights, protesting the Vietnam War, ordaining women to the priesthood, and revising the Book of Common Prayer. The decline in our membership statistics is, of course, a serious issue, and needs to be taken seriously. It may be the case that the Episcopal Church would once again flourish statistically if we would just quit meddling in politics, support our President no matter what, put women back in their place, return to Jesus’ own Prayer Book (1928), and, above all, get rid of the gays.

But I don’t think so.

Archbishop Williams (yes, this one this time)

2008-08-21T11:29:00.004-05:00

Poor +Rowan. Lately everybody has been picking on him -- both the "progressives" and the "traditionalists." (That's the problem with standing in the middle of the road -- you are likely to be hit by trucks coming from both directions.)

Anyway, somebody recently made reference to +Rowan's 2002 small (in size) book, Writing in the Dust, written in the wake of September 11. So I pulled it off the shelf and read it again last night. It really is a remarkable book -- wise and deeply thoughtful. I am particularly struck by Chapter 5, "Against Symbols."

He writes: "'Using other people to think with'; that is, using them as symbols for points on your map, values in your scheme of things. When you get used to imposing meanings in this way, you silence the stranger's account of who they are; and that can mean both metaphorical and literal death." (p. 64) He speaks of Christians and Muslims, of Christians and Jews, of the West and the East, of men (males) and women.

He doesn't say anything about gay people, nor in the context of the book is there any particular reason why he should. But it seems to me that the sin of "using other people to think with" applies just as much to what we think and say about gays as about Muslims, Jews, women, and all "others."

+Rowan, GO RE-READ YOUR OWN BOOK!

(Hmm. Do you suppose it's possible? -- Grand Tufti, who are you really? And what have you done with our Rowan??)

Archbishop Williams (no, not that one)

2008-08-19T19:20:00.002-05:00

http://science.howstuffworks.com/ten-bungled-flight-attempt4.htm

I have absolutely no idea how this is related to the current history of the Anglican Communion, but there must be some connection somewhere.

(Be careful about getting your Archbishops from Wales? No, that can't be it....)

A Pinch of Gay Incense

2008-07-29T13:21:00.003-05:00

One of the issues raised by some bishops of dioceses in Africa regarding the Church's attitude toward gays and lesbians, committed same-sex relationships, etc., is that approving, or even "not condemning," these people and their relationships would put their Christian mission at great disadvantage and even danger vis-a-vis the Muslims, who are depicted as being vehemently, even violently, anti-gay. (Actually, I think there is some real diversity of opinion among the world's Muslims about homosexuality, but it's probably fair to say that most African Muslims are at least as anti-gay as most African Christians.)

For instance, Archbishop Deng of Sudan said last week: "We reject homosexual practice as contrary to biblical teaching and can accept no place for it within ECS. We strongly oppose developments within the Anglican Church in the USA and Canada in consecrating a practicing homosexual as bishop and in approving a rite for the blessing of same-sex relationships. This has not only caused deep divisions within the Anglican Communion but it has seriously harmed the Church’s witness in Africa and elsewhere, opening the church to ridicule and damaging its credibility in a multi-religious environment." [Emphasis mine.]

Other bishops in parts of Africa have made statements that are even harsher. Their appeal is to what they think the Bible says (an interpretation which many Christians do not share), but it is also fairly clear that there are also cultural issues at stake -- as well as political issues. And maybe more than a little fear. It has been suggested that at least in some areas, toleration of homosexuality by Christians might lead to persecution by Muslims. I don't know whether that is true or not, but I can imagine that it might well be.

It's interesting that some African voices are accusing the West (particularly the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada, but with many in the Church of England and other Anglican Provinces in the British Isles and elsewhere in the world) of surrendering to the spirit of the age on this issue. I would suggest they read more American newspapers. While it is certainly true that more and more Americans (especially younger people) are accepting of same-sex committed partnerships, or least tolerant of them, there is still plenty of virulent homophobia, even violence. Matthew Shepherd. The young schoolboy recently killed by a classmate in school. Parishioners in a Unitarian church in Knoxville. Dozens more. Thousands of young people whose discovery of their sexual orientation and the reaction of their families and acquaintences has led them into depression, despair, and even suicide. If the Episcopal Church is cozying up to the spirit of the age, we have obviously made a serious misjudgment. The Zeitgeist of the West on this issue is not all that much different from that of Nigeria.

In the first three centuries of the Church's life, thousands of Christians (we estimate) were imprisoned, tortured, or killed because they refused to offer a pinch of incense on an altar before an image of the Emperor, or refused to turn over copies of the Scriptures for burning, or refused to enter marriages arranged by their pagan families. Many other Christians did yield, out of fear or for convenience's sake or for the sake of peace and accommodation. It is not for me to tell African Christians how they must respond to threats and persecution from what is often a more powerful and sometimes threatening Muslim community. But I will not be complicit in throwing our GLBT sisters and brothers under the bus for the sake of the safety of the majority. The martyrs of the faith deserve better remembrance than that.

Christ is the Way

2008-07-29T10:02:00.003-05:00

Among the subjects that some folks these days seem to be getting their knickers in a twist about is how to understand John 14:6: "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." The "hardline" interpretation of this is that unless one has consciously and explicitly professed one's faith in Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord, one cannot be saved. (There is, of course, a wide spectrum of less "hardline" interpretations. Even the Roman Catholic Church, which is not exactly "soft" on Jesus, grants the legitimacy of acknowledging the possibility of salvation for those whom Karl Rahner called "anonymous Christians.")

Here's what I say, and I'm pretty hardline about this:

Muslims cannot be saved by Islam.
Hindus cannot be saved by Hinduism.
Buddhists cannot be saved by Buddhism.
Jews cannot be saved by Judaism.

And finally (all you who recall Amos 1-2 will see this coming):

Christians cannot be saved by Christianity.

We are not saved by our religion(s). We are saved by the grace of God.

God does not consult with us about who is qualified to receive grace.

When Jesus talks about being "the way, and the truth, and the life," I see no indication that he is talking about ecclesiastical membership or theological orthodoxy or religious observance. I think he is talking about coming with him into the Kingdom of God. How well we can articulate the fullness of the identity of our Divine Companion is pretty much beside the point, which is good news for us, because none of us really understand the fullness of his identity.

Or, as the folks who had been rescued/healed/saved in the old western movies used to say, "Who was that masked man?"

Dave Walker and the SPCK

2008-07-25T19:16:00.004-05:00

I'm not going to get into this in any detail here, other than to note that "I Am Also Dave Walker." If you know what I'm talking about, well, then, you know what I'm talking about! If not, and you care (I really think we should care about this) you can find out all about it over at the MadPriest's place. http://revjph.blogspot.com/2008/07/very-important-dave-walker-update.html (And if you don't care, well, pthpthpthp!)

St. Mary Magdalene

2008-07-22T17:47:00.000-05:00

A friend and colleague was the celebrant at the Eucharist this morning, and in his homily he noted that all of a sudden there are dozens and dozens of books on the market about Mary Magdalene. (You can check them out on the online booksellers.) His favorite title was (yes, really!) "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Mary Magdalene."

I am speechless....

Bible-Believing Christians (2)

2008-07-21T16:48:00.002-05:00

When the Holy Spirit moved the Church to require-or-at-least-encourage the praying of the Daily Office, s/he knew what s/he was doing.

This morning I was reading Joshua 7:1-13, as the lectionary directs. I noticed that tomorrow the reading picks up at Joshua 8:1 (well, actually, some of us will probably join that to the Wednesday reading, since tomorrow is St. Mary Magdalene). Well, thought I, what about Joshua 7:14-26? So I went back to read that (or re-read it, since I must have looked at it two years ago, or four, or six....). This is where the story goes on to relate how God and Joshua dealt with Achan son of Carmi (etc.) who took some of the devoted things from the sacking of Jericho, resulting in the humiliating defeat of the Israelites at Ai.

"Then Joshua and all Israel with him took Achan [great-grand]son of Zerah, with the silver, the mantle, and the bar of gold, with his sons and daughters, with his oxen, donkeys, and sheep, and his tent and all that he had, and they brought them up to the Valley of Achor. Joshua said, 'Why did you bring trouble on us? The Lord is bringing trouble on you today.' And all Israel stoned him to death; they burned them with fire, cast stones on them, and raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day. Then the Lord turned from his burning anger. Therefore that place to this day is called the Valley of Achor [That is Trouble]."

This episode is part of our story as the People of God, and we should most certainly read it and know it. But I am getting just a little tired of listing to "evangelical" whiners appeal to "Biblical morality." If you are a "Bible-Believing Christian," exactly what is it you believe about this story? (I certainly think that God may well speak to us through this story, but exactly what God is saying is another subject for another post.)

"Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation" (Article VI); it does not say "All things contained in Holy Scripture are necessary to salvation."

For those who are following Track One of the Revised Common Lectionary, the First Reading this coming Sunday is the story of Jacob's marriages to Leah and Rachel. Doubtless some more "Biblical sexual morality," a/k/a "What the Bible teaches about marriage." I'd be interested to know what the "Bible-Believing Christians" in our own Anglican-and-other-RCL-following family do with this. Actually, I'm planning to preach on this passage myself. Check in early next week to my "Have Stole Will Travel" blog.

Lambeth....

2008-07-21T10:53:00.000-05:00

Go see this at the MadPriest's place:

http://revjph.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-godless-see-us.html

"The Bible says....!"

2008-07-20T17:34:00.000-05:00

Although we did not observe this "lesser feast" today because it is Sunday, I noted that July 20 is the commemoration of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Jenks Bloomer, Sojourner Truth, and Harriet Ross Tubman. (The date for this celebration of major women witnesses for God's justice is that of the Women's Rights Convention in Seneca Falls, New York, in 1848.) I notice that the opposition -- often very substantial opposition -- within the Church to the witness of these women for justice and equality for people of both sexes and all races was based upon certain quotations from the Bible, and there were widespread attacks from church pulpits. Ms. Bloomer, for instance, was accused of defying the clear Scriptural prohibition of women "dressing like men." (Yes, that's why they were called "bloomers"!)

Come on, folks, I can remember when it was still a matter of controversy for a woman to wear a pants suit to church on Sunday, and without a hat.

In our generation we are excluding and condemning GLBTs because "the Bible says...." People, we just have to get over this stuff!

Anglo-Catholics and Women Bishops (5)

2008-07-15T21:32:00.000-05:00

Another objection to the ordination of women to the priesthood and the episcopate is that it presents a major, even fatal, obstacle to hopes of reunion with Rome. Uhh, no. Well, I’m sure that the ordination of women presents an obstacle in the eyes of the papacy. But that’s not our problem. Let’s talk about obstacles to the reunion of Christendom:

1. The doctrine of the infallibility of the Pope. Granted, nobody is quite sure exactly what this means (although Cardinal Ratzinger seemed sure enough a few years ago), and some liberal Roman Catholic theologians have tried to find ways to weasel around it or explain it away, but that simply won’t do. The doctrine is arrogant and false, and if the Roman Catholic Church really wants to implement Christ’s prayerful wish “ut unum sint,” then they have to renounce it. Not just reinterpret it, renounce it.

2. Even more of an obstacle in my mind than the Pope’s infallibility (which is, after all, a silly claim anyway) is the Pope’s universal ordinary jurisdiction. In other words, the Bishop of Rome can (and sometimes does) intervene directly in the affairs of local dioceses. The bottom line is that Roman bishops, even cardinal archbishops, are only suffragans of the Bishop of Rome. Sorry. It isn’t going to happen. If Rome is serious about the reunion of Christendom, this is number one on the repudiation list.

3. Another obstacle is the issue of inventing new doctrines, or at least raising somewhat old but hardly primitive doctrines to dogmatic status. Specifically, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary and the doctrine of her Corporal Assumption into Heaven. Frankly, I don’t have a huge objection if someone wants to believe that those pious opinions are true. I don’t believe they are, but if others find them coherent or meaningful, that’s okay, and I’m willing to listen to their explanations. Personally, I find the Immaculate Conception (of Mary) meaningless; I think it involves a category mistake about the nature of original sin. The Assumption bothers me a little more, since it is a specifically historical claim that is without any evidence whatsoever, and I think we need to be very careful about the historical claims we make. The most obvious problematic claim is the Resurrection of Jesus; whether it should be regarded as historical depends on how one defines “historical,” but there is certainly solid historical evidence that the first generation of Christians were absolutely convinced that Jesus had really been raised from the dead and had appeared to many of his followers. There is absolutely no similar evidence concerning the circumstances of the death, or purported non-death, of St. Mary the Mother of Jesus. Nor is it clear what the meaning of this alleged event might be. It would be a very strange way to honor our Lord’s Mother by making a false historical claim about her. More to the point, to claim that Mary’s Assumption was in some sense a reflection of her Son’s Resurrection seems to me to miss the point of the Resurrection of Jesus (which is not that “we too will go to heaven when we die”). Bishop N. T. Wright has some excellent reflections on the significance of the Resurrection; as far as I am aware he does not discuss the alleged Assumption, nor, I suppose, would he. But in any case, if someone wants to “believe in” the Immaculate Conception of Mary and in her Assumption, go ahead. But for Rome to claim that these pious opinions are de fide dogmata is utterly beyond the pale, and raises grave suspicions about whether they fully understand what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is really about.

I suppose an ecumenical negotiator might say, well, Rome will give up the universal authority of the Pope and the Marian dogmas, if the Anglicans will give up the ordination of women. Nice try. I for one am absolutely unwilling to throw my sisters under the bus in exchange for renunciations of falsehoods that Rome needs to give up in any case.

Reunion with Rome is something which simply is not going to happen in our time, sadly, certainly not on their terms. Mind you, I am very much in favor of the closest possible relationships and cooperation in mission and service between Roman Catholics and Anglicans at the local level, the diocesan level, and even at the national level. I rejoice that +Rowan and +Benedict seem to have a good personal relationship. But they both need to understand that we are not going to give up anything to Rome. Au contraire….

Anglo-Catholics and Women Bishops (4)

2008-07-15T21:19:00.000-05:00

Reflections on objections to the ordination of women to the priesthood and a fortiori to the episcopate (for some of you this may be old hat and you’re tired of hearing about it. Feel free to skip to the next post):

Obj. 1. Christ did not appoint any female apostles.
Reply Obj. 1. Christ also did not appoint any Italian or Polish or German apostles. (Where did all these Popes come from? Jesus didn’t even appoint any English apostles!) Further; Jesus did not authorize the installation of flush toilets in parish churches. (Does anyone really expect us to take this line of argument seriously?)

Obj. 2. The New Testament forbids the ordination of women, e.g. 1 Cor 14:33b-36, 1 Tim 2:11-15.
Reply Obj. 2. Well, I suppose there is a sense in which it does. (I would argue that St. Paul is not the author of either of these passages — the former completely breaks the train of thought, reads like an interpolation, and contradicts Paul’s general attitude toward female colleagues in the ministry, and the latter is from the Pastorals which I believe are pseudo-Pauline, at least mostly. But these passages are still canonical Scripture, whoever wrote them, so they have to be dealt with.) However, these verses don’t simply forbid the ordination of women, they forbid any exercise of general authority in the Church by women. This means (and until fifty years ago was widely understood to mean) that women not only cannot be ordained, but also may not serve as lay readers, members of the vestry, delegates to diocesan convention, deputies to General Convention, etc. There are still some very conservative evangelical churches (some Baptists, for instance, though certainly not all) who closely follow this direction and do not permit female leadership of anything but women’s organizations, nor may they teach Sunday School to classes including boys above the age of seven. At least this position is Scripturally consistent. I personally remember when it was said in the Episcopal Church, “If you elect a woman to be Senior Warden, next they’ll want to be ordained priest!” Yep! Ex ore dooforum.

Obj. 3. A woman can no more be a priest than a man can be a mother.
Reply Obj. 3. Actually even C.S. Lewis made this argument somewhere (I forget exactly where; I could look it up, but it’s not really worth it), and one still hears it occasionally. Well, Lewis was brilliant 99% of the time, which is a lot better than most of us. The assumption is that priesthood is essentially fatherly, and therefore a woman cannot exercise it. Where does one begin with this? Paul uses paternal imagery for his relationship with his churches (1 Cor. 4:15, 1 Thess. 2:11), but he also uses maternal imagery (Gal. 4:19, 1 Thess. 2:7.) I’m not sure where the idea came from that Christian priesthood (including episcopacy) is essentially paternal, other than that for most of Christian history bishops and priests were all men. But in a large percentage of cases, we might note, they were not fathers, except metaphorically. The superior of a religious community of women is often called “Mother,” and her responsibilities are quite equivalent to those of the superior of a men’s community. The only difference between an abbot and an abbess is their gender. Actually the use of parental titles and imagery for priestly ministry is open to question, I think, and I suspect we are moving away from it. As one who was ordained and called “Father” at the age of twenty-four, I am sensitive to the ultimate silliness of this custom, although I still observe it, sort of, some of the time.

Obj. 4. Thomas Aquinas writes: “Since it is not possible in the female sex to signify eminence of degree, for a woman is in the state of subjection, it follows that she cannot receive the sacrament of Order.” (Summa Theologiae, III.Suppl. Q.39 a.1. The Supplement to Pars Tertia was edited and published posthumously by Rainaldo da Pipeno, of course, but the text is taken directly from Thomas’ earlier Commentary on Book 4 of the Sentences of Peter Lombard.)
Reply Obj. 4. It is this that was really the definitive argument through most of the Church’s history. But it is obvious to most of us today that it is an argument with serious problems. First, the premise that ordination is related to “eminence of degree” (see also Q.34 aa.1&2.) is a pretty shaky one, and that’s to give it more than it deserves. Second, the premise that a woman is in “the state of subjection” is also a non-starter. Aquinas was a good enough logician to realize that when the premises are false, the conclusion is also likely to be false (or at least not proved by the premises). Unfortunately it seems not to have occurred to him to give his premises a really thorough examination.

Obj. 5. A priest (or a fortiori a bishop) is a sign of Christ, and Christ was and is a man. As Pope Paul VI said (Inter Insigniores, Chapter 5, 1976), “‘Sacramental signs,’ says St. Thomas, ‘represent what they signify by natural resemblance.’ The same natural resemblance is required for persons as for things: when Christ’s role in the Eucharist is to be expressed sacramentally, there would not be this ‘natural resemblance’ which must exist between Christ and his minister if the role of Christ were not taken by a man: in such a case it would be difficult to see in the minister the image of Christ. For Christ himself was and remains a man.” (This papal teaching has been subsequently reaffirmed by both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI.)
Reply Obj. 5. Pope Paul’s 1976 declaration interestingly enough discarded (subtly, but still discarded) the Thomistic argument in Obj. 4., and substituted this one. It’s a long and fairly well thought out argument, but in the end it just doesn’t work. In fact, pushed to its logical conclusion, it represents a heretical Christology. All baptized persons manifest the image of Christ. Women are not “lesser” images of Christ. “Christ the priest” is not a better or higher image than “Christ the servant” (if anything, quite the contrary, by Jesus’ own words) and the Church, God knows, has never had any hesitation assigning to women the role of servant. It has been commented about this declaration that by this thinking a woman not only cannot be validly ordained, she cannot even be validly baptized. This argument is a classic instance of the clergy “thinking more highly of themselves than they ought to think” (Romans 12:3). I think it may well have been this argument that was the final straw for many Anglicans (and others), including me: If this is the best argument for not ordaining women, then there clearly is no good argument for not ordaining women. But Rome held on nevertheless. In 1994 Pope John Paul II issued an Apostolic Letter, Ordinatio Sacerdotalis, in which he named as reasons for not ordaining women: (1) “The example recorded in the Sacred Scriptures of Christ choosing his Apostles only from among men,” ignoring the fact that Christ chose only Jewish men; but in any case, so what? See Reply Obj. 1. (2) “The constant practice of the Church,” that is, “We’ve always done it this way before,” and (3) “her [the Church’s] living teaching authority,” that is, “Because I say so.” John Paul II concluded: “I declare that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.” Tell me if I’m mistaken: is this the only instance in history in which the Pope declared that the Roman Church had “no authority whatsoever”? I can’t think of another one offhand. But of course I could be wrong….

Obj. 6. The Church of England or other Churches of the Anglican Communion do not have authority to make this change in the Church’s ordained ministry without the consensus of the Universal Church.
Reply Obj. 6. In other words, we can’t ever change anything anytime anyhow. First of all, the consensus of the Universal Church (presumably expressed through an Ecumenical Council) isn’t going to happen in the foreseeable future, or, alas, even in the unforeseeable future. Actually, in real life this means “we can’t make this change until/unless Rome says we can.” Umm, do we remember that we are Anglicans?” (These aren’t the same folks who are also making the big whoop about the 39 Articles, are they? Article 21: “General Councils…may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God.” Article 37: “The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.”) Those in the Church of England who will not accept the ordination of women until/unless the Pope or a General Council says they can would be in violation of the Statute of Praemunire, except that Praemunire was repealed in 1967. Darn. (Incidentally, are any of these folks aware that the permission of the clergy to marry, stated in Article 32 — not just the ordination of married candidates but the marriage of priests already ordained — is a violation of quite ancient tradition and canon law? The Church of England said that this was an issue within its competence to decide, and I am not aware that there has been any argument about this within Anglicanism. The ordination of women is also within the competence of the Anglican Churches to decide.)

Anglo-Catholics and Women Bishops (3)

2008-07-15T21:14:00.000-05:00

The primary group of opponents of the consecration of women to the episcopate in England are typically being identified simply as “the Anglo-Catholics.” Excuse me! I consider myself an Anglo-Catholic, and I’ve been one longer than a lot of these folks. (I was confirmed when I was a boy at All Saints’ Church, Indianapolis — the parish that at the time was “the Anglo-Catholic parish” of the diocese. Twenty-five years later, in that parish — still an Anglo-Catholic parish, but by then it was no longer such a big deal — the Rev. Jacqueline Mears was ordained to the priesthood, the first woman to be legally ordained after the approval of the ordination of women by the General Convention.) In the United States and in most of the rest of the Communion, Anglo-Catholics (with a few exceptions) not only do not oppose the ordination of women, but enthusiastically welcome it, and a substantial number of ordained women consider themselves to be Anglo-Catholics.

However, we should also recognize that the spectrum of “churchmanship” in England has always been much wider than it has been in North America or much of the rest of the Communion. English Evangelicals are more “evangelical” than any other Anglicans on earth, except in Sydney. English Anglo-Catholics have routinely adopted practices that American Anglo-Catholics never for a moment considered doing, like saying Mass in Latin from the Missale Romanum. (In those days we all used the American Missal, but all things considered it was relatively faithful to the Book of Common Prayer. Once the Episcopal Church began the Trial Use of liturgical forms that eventuated in the 1979 BCP, most of us put the missals away. On the whole the 1979 Book represented what we really wanted anyway.) The “Anglo-Catholic” opposition in England to the ordination and consecration of women to the priesthood and the episcopate are actually Ultramontanists (although they won’t always admit that even to themselves). As Dr. Eric Mascall (no mean Anglo-Catholic himself) put it many years ago, before the current kerfuffle:
And, though I’ve not submitted yet,
as all my friends expected,
I should have gone last Tuesday week,
had not my wife objected.
(From “The Ultra-Catholic,” Pi in the High.)

Anglo-Catholics and Women Bishops (2)

2008-07-15T21:11:00.000-05:00

One of the annoying sidelights of this are the comments from Rome and Moscow about the Church of England’s action. Vatican Radio posted a story headlined “Vatican Regret at Anglican Vote to Ordain Female Bishops.” Please give me a break. For one thing, John Paul II reinforced the century-old ruling by Rome that Anglican orders are “absolutely null and utterly void,” so why should they care about what the Church of England does? Other provinces of the Anglican Communion have been consecrating women bishops for many years — the US, Canada, New Zealand, and recently Australia and Cuba — and other provinces are clearly on the verge. Something like twenty of the bishops at Lambeth will be women. What are we, chopped liver? Rome reminds me of nothing so much as Captain Renault’s exclamation to Rick: “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling in going on in here!” The only surprise about the Church of England is that it took them so long.

Anglo-Catholics and Women Bishops (1)

2008-07-15T21:06:00.000-05:00

My plan was to continue a series of whining about GAFCON, and I still plan to do that, but in the meantime the General Synod of the Church of England has approved the appointment and consecration of women to the episcopate. (We are urged to continue breathing normally, however.) This has largely displaced GAFCON in the British press and on many of The Usual Blogs, at least for a little while. So I will detour through a series of curmudgeonly reflections on the decision of the General Synod and the reactions to it, divided into a number of sections since once I got started I could hardly restrain myself....

Much of the big whoop in England has to do with the fact that the measure passed by Synod does not provide for safe all-male havens for those who claim that in conscience they cannot acknowledge the episcopal or priestly ministry of women—primarily conservative Anglo-Catholics, although some conservative Evangelicals are allied with them on this issue. (I don’t in the least doubt that they are in sincere conscience; whether it is good conscience is another question, which I may get to later.) Those who wanted special protection from girl cooties by means of some system of “super bishops,” or even a boys-only province of their own, did not get it. The measure provides for a “national code of practice” (yet to be formulated) to give some respite to those who will not accept a female bishop. On the other hand, it is speculated that this code of practice will also repeal and replace the current system of “flying bishops” who minister to those who have refused to accept women priests in England.

GAFCON (1): Being Anglican

2008-07-06T19:26:00.003-05:00

The word “Anglican” is derived from the Latin Anglicanus (-a, -um), which means “English.” Ecclesia Anglicana is the English Church, normally phrased as “The Church of England.” The highest-ranking cleric in the Church of England is the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is Metropolitan of the Province of Canterbury and Primate of All England. A number of other national churches derived from (some might say, “were emitted by”) the Church of England. The first of these was the Scottish Episcopal Church. Whether in the eighteenth century they would have been considered as, or considered themselves as, “Anglican,” I don’t know. I’m not sure what their relationship with Canterbury was. They were, after all, non-jurors; they were not C of E. I don’t know that the issue of their “Anglicanism” really ever arose, although the C of E did extend some support and sympathy to the small and sometimes persecuted Scottish Episcopalian minority, with whom they felt a relationship.

Then at the end of the eighteenth century the United States secured its independence, and the previously Anglican congregations (hitherto under the jurisdiction, such as it was, of the Bishop of London) constituted themselves as the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America. As we know, the parishes in Connecticut were unable to secure the consecration of a bishop from Canterbury (for legal reasons that were at least technically valid), but successfully did so from the Scottish church, who were not so constrained. Subsequently the Church of England obtained legal provisions for consecrating Bishops beyond the C of E (whether out of the goodness of their missionary hearts, or because they knew that if they didn’t the Scots would), and several additional bishops were consecrated for the Episcopal Church in the U.S. At that point the American episcopate became self-sufficient. But although the Preface to the American Book of Common Prayer (1789) acknowledges the debt of the Episcopal Church to the Church of England and states the intention of TEC not to depart from the C of E in any essential point (“or further than local circumstances require”), it is not clear that the notion of an “Anglican identity” or membership in an “Anglican Communion” had yet emerged. Presumably the Episcopal Church was “in communion with” the Church of England, as well as with the Scottish Episcopal Church — after all, they had consecrated our first bishops — but it isn’t clear what if anything that might actually mean. (Bear in mind that the United States and Great Britain were at war again from 1812 to 1815, and that Great Britain supported the Confederacy during the American Civil War.)

But by the middle of the nineteenth century, particularly as the Church of England’s missionary activity followed the development and expansion of the British Empire, the C of E was becoming a church of international scope. The “Anglican Communion” as such can arguably trace its inception to the first Lambeth Conference in 1867. Since then the Anglican Communion, and its influence and that of the Archbishop of Canterbury, have continued to grow. In the late nineteenth century the Church of Ireland was disestablished and in the early twentieth the Church in Wales. Other formerly colonial or dominion churches have become independent and autonomous, so that now the majority of the Anglican Communion are not members of the Church of England. Nevertheless, membership in the Anglican Communion is defined as being in communion with the Church of England/the Archbishop of Canterbury (with the relatively recent Anglican Consultative Council serving as “membership secretary”).

It is certainly true that there is an “Anglican tradition” (or “Anglican traditions”), Anglicanism as a “style” of being Christian, and there are some things that can be identified as “mainstream Anglican” and others that are “marginally Anglican” or even “not really Anglican at all.” Obviously there is no general consensus as to what any of things specifically are! Which simply reinforces my contention that Anglicanism is not “confessional” or even very specifically doctrinal (the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral is arguably about as close as many of us are willing to get). That doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as theological truth or theological error, but it does mean that we deal with disagreement by discussion (yes, and passionate argumentation!), but not by decree or power.

It means that to be an Anglican means to be a member of the Church of England, or of a church that is in communion with the Church of England through the Archbishop of Canterbury. That’s what “Anglican” means. So if you are not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, you are not an Anglican. Period.

There are a number of churches that have an Anglican heritage and share a great many things with Anglicans in terms of doctrine, liturgy, etc. An early example would be the Methodists. John and Charles Wesley, of course, lived and died as priests of the Church of England. But the English Church was remarkably obtuse about the spiritual renewal that the Methodists were advocating, and the Methodists were eventually driven to separation. Methodists are not Anglicans. Many of them do not even remember that they once were Anglicans. If the new American Episcopal Church had exercised greater ecumenical imagination early in our history, it might have made immense difference in the history of American Christianity. Alas, by the time of William Reed Huntingdon it was already too late in regard to the Methodists. A somewhat later example is the Reformed Episcopal Church in the United States, who split with the Episcopal Church over “high” liturgical practices and baptismal regeneration. They thought they were upholding traditional Episcopal/Anglican principles: But:

"Not being Anglican in spirit, [Bishop George] Cummins [Assistant Bishop of Kentucky and leader of the schism] and his followers could not endure the tensiion which characterizes a comprehensive Church. Essentially sectarian in their conception of the Church, they could be satisfied with nothing short of uniformity. They departed ... because they thought the Church was not energetic enough in suppressing convictions which they opposed....They could breathe freely only in a body where there were none to disagree." (James Thayer Addison, The Episcopal Church in the United States 1789-1931, 1951; quoted in Powel Mills Dawley, Our Christian Heritage, rev. 1978.)

(GAFCON and FOCA, please copy.)

The last generation or so has seen a number of other small schisms (yes, they are small, but also yes, they are schisms) which often use the word “Anglican” in their institutional title. They are not in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury, and therefore, despite a substantial Anglican heritage, they are not Anglicans no matter what they claim on their letterheads. Perhaps most notable currently is the Convocation of Anglicans in North America, originating from a schism in the Episcopal Diocese of Virginia. They have placed themselves under the (all too eager) jurisdiction of the Primate of the Church of Nigeria, but they are not recognized by Canterbury and are therefore by definition not Anglican. (Stay tuned. Film at 11:00.) Several other separatist groups have latched on to Primates in East Africa and in the Southern Cone of the Americas, claiming thereby to demonstrate their authentic Anglicanness. So far the Archbishop of Canterbury (Rowan Williams) isn’t buying it.

Comes now the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), with their spin-off organization (assuming it does get organized), the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FOCA). [“But I thought you said a moment ago that Anglicanism is not confessional!” Well, yes. Boys and girls, can you say “oxymoron”?] Following its meeting in Jerusalem, GAFCON issued (or, as some might say, emitted) a Final Statement on 29 June 2008 (to which was attached “The Jerusalem Declaration,” which was somewhat odd since the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem had explicitly asked them not to meet in Israel) The Statement can be found at http://tinyurl.com/6gkjmf.

In the main body of the Statement they said:

"While acknowledging the nature of Canterbury as an historic see, we do not accept that Anglican identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Archbishop of Canterbury."

O-kay.

Over on the other side of the River Tiber, I wonder how far one would get with the statement, “While acknowledging the nature of Rome as an historic see, we do not accept that Roman Catholic identity is determined necessarily through recognition by the Pope.”

As I write this essay, the Church of England is holding its regular General Synod in York. We shall see what emerges (or is emitted, if you like) from that meeting. In the meantime I plan to make further comments about the GAFCON Final Statement. Watch this space.

Orthodoxy at GAFCON

2008-06-27T15:03:00.000-05:00

A quick quiz: Which one of the following statements is most essentially de fide (of the essence of the Christian faith)?

1. There is one God, in three persons (in human language most frequently designated Father, Son, and Holy Spirit).

2. God the Son (or the Word, Greek Logos) became incarnate (became flesh) in Jesus of Nazareth, the Messiah or Christ.

3. Human beings are saved (restored to fullness of life eternally) by God's grace through the Holy Spirit, and not by any action of our own.

4. God hates fags.

The correct answer for the "orthodox" folks at GAFCON is, of course, No. 4.

Hey, why not?

2008-06-26T20:19:00.000-05:00

Bible-Believing Christians

2008-06-22T18:43:00.000-05:00

I was reading Matins this morning, and the first lesson was the latter part of Numbers 14. Afterwards, I noticed that the first lesson tomorrow morning will be from Numbers 16. "Hmm," I thought to myself, "what's in chapter 15 that we're leaving out?" Perhaps this. (I understand why certain verses don't get read, but I'm not always sure that's the best idea.)

Numbers 15:32-36: When the Israelites were in the wildnerness, they
found a man gathering sticks on the sabbath day. Those who found him
gathering sticks brought him to Moses, Aaron, and to the whole
congregation. They put him in custody, because it was not clear what
should be done to him. Then the Lord said to Moses, "The man shall be put
to death; all the congregation shall stone him outside the camp." The
whole congregation brought him outside the camp and stoned him to death, just as
the Lord had commanded Moses.

All you "Bible-Believing Christians," please help me understand what to make of that. Especially all you Bible-believing Anglicans over there at the GAFCON conference.

Is there anyone who can help me understand why "Bible-Believing Christian" isn't an oxymoron? Please let me assure you: I do believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be the Word of God, and to contain all things necessary to salvation. But it seems to me that first we must believe in (have faith in) Jesus Christ, who is the Word of God in the first instance, and only then are we able to understand how the Scriptures are the Word of God.

And if you GAFCON folks and your associates are of the opinion that Numbers 15:32-36 is not binding upon us now, then was it ever binding upon anyone? Why, or why not?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Teamwork

2008-06-18T08:09:00.000-05:00

Pentecost, and our Lady

2008-05-10T17:20:00.000-05:00

Yesterday my wife and I were out on a daytrip and we visited the local art museum of a nearby city.

[Excursus: If you don't already do it, I encourage you to visit your local art museum. It's amazing how many really wonderful paintings there are by artists you've never heard of. End of excursus.]

One of the paintings I saw was a "Descent of the Holy Ghost" by Juan de Juanes, a Spanish painter of the mid-16th century. (No, I'd never heard of him before either.) (All you art history majors: you don't count!) I liked it a lot; it was, I think, typical of that era. The painting depicted the twelve apostles (St. Matthias being #12), together with the Blessed Virgin Mary, gathered together in the upper room. At the top of the painting was depicted the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and from the Spirit were emanating tongues of fire, lighting upon the heads of each of those present. The twelve apostles; and also St. Mary.

So.

+Jack, and +Keith, yes and you too, +Benedict, and even you, +Rowan: Get over it!

Orthodoxy and Heresy

2008-05-03T21:53:00.001-05:00

A colleague passed on to me today a copy of an article from the April 22 Christian Century, by Garret Keizer, entitled "Reasons to Join: In defense of organized religion."(*) (http://www.christiancentury.org/; but this particular article is available online only to subscribers.) Many excellent things in this article, but I was particularly struck by a quote from Kenneth Leech (Keizer did not give the exact citation):

The rejection of paradox and ambiguity is the characteristic of heretics in all
ages. Heresy is one-dimensional, narrow, over-simplified, and boring. It is
straight-line thinking, preferring a pseudo-clarity to the many-sidedness of
truth, tidiness to the mess and complexity of reality. Orthodoxy by contrast is
rooted in the unknowable.

Keizer goes on to comment, "I realize that such a passage may be offensive to some heretics, but imaging how offensive it must be to religious believers who fancy that their heretical simplifications are orthodox!"

(*) With due respect to Mark Twain: "I don't belong to an organized religion. I'm an Episcopalian."

Biblical Morality

2008-04-29T20:54:00.000-05:00

A couple of weeks ago, or so, I was reading in Exodus (these verses aren't part of the daily office lectionary; I must have been doing some lectio divina) and ran across this passage. (I must have read this many times before, but for some reason it never "stuck.")

21:2-4: When you buy a male Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, but in the seventh he shall go out a free person, without debt. If he comes in single, he shall go out single; if he comes in married, then his wife shall go out with him. [So far, so good.] [Well, sort of.] If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone.

That's swell.

It goes on to say, by the way, that if the husband loves his wife and children and does not want to abandon them, he can stay with them, but at the price of committing himself to servitude for the rest of his life.

Ain't that nice? Very moral.

I sometimes wonder whether the folks who talk so much about "Biblical Morality" (especially "Biblical Sexual Morality") have actually read the Bible.

An awful lot of the sexual goings-on in the Bible, apparently with divine approbation or at least divine indifference, are by our standards pretty appalling.

Of course there are many passages, in both the Old Testament and the New, that can be appealed to for the foundation of genuinely godly and Christian sexual morality. So by what principles do we distinguish between that "biblical sexual morality" which is genuinely godly and Christian, and that (also) "biblical sexual morality" which is cruel, abusive, exploitative, etc.? (Is there anyone out there who really wants to try to defend Exodus 21:2-4?)

Maybe a genuinely godly and Christian sexual morality requires more than just quoting Bible verses.

Just saying.

The Liturgical Curmudgeon Strikes Again

2008-03-23T18:18:00.000-05:00

In the March 23 issue of The Living Church, editor David Kalvalage posted a column in which he asked "More and More Questions." I couldn't resist answering them for him, and have sent them off to him. Because David is a good and godly person, he might even print some of them. But because he is a good editor, he might throw them away.

But here they are, anyway:

Is a Christian shirking responsibility by not voting in a political election?
It depends. In the case of a local election in which no big issues seem to be at stake: probably not, though voting would be better. In the case of the upcoming presidential election: absolutely!

Why can’t we negotiate these property disputes instead of creating such ill will?
“What’s mine is mine; what’s yours is negotiable.” When people try to walk away with the church’s property, whose fault is the ill will?

Why do some people feel the necessity to hold hands during prayer, especially the Lord’s Prayer?
How do you know they “feel the necessity”? Maybe they just like to do it. If you don’t care for it, that’s quite okay, but why are you bothered by someone else’s innocent customs?

Whatever became of the Anglican Communion Network?
They’re still around, although they seem to be all caught up in the Common Cause Partnership. They are apparently trying to figure out a way to commit schism without having to pay a price for it.

Did your congregation take notice of “Environment Weekend?”
Yes, although it did not displace the regular liturgical calendar.

Why has it become standard practice to end a sermon with the preacher saying “Amen”?
Has this become a standard practice? I don’t do it, myself (I use the invocation of the Trinity at the beginning and the end, but I don’t argue for that as the only legitimate practice.) Saying “Amen” seems like a very clear way for the preacher to say, “I’m finished now.” The congregation often responds, “Amen,” which may mean “Thank you for a very good sermon,” or it may mean “Thank God you are finished now.”

Isn’t approval of same-gender blessings a “slam dunk” for next year’s General Convention?
Probably not. (Why are so many people’s religion dependent on how other people commit their lives to each other?)

Do you understand what’s happening in San Joaquin? Do you care?
Yes. Yes.

Are things any different in your congregation than they were five years ago? Ten years ago?
Yes, I think there has been a significant development in lay ministry, both within the parish and in the community.

Did the Executive Council really need to meet in Ecuador?
Yes. The Executive Council meets in all nine provinces in rotation. Unless you think that Province 9 doesn’t count. Reports from the last EC meeting seem to be that they had a very productive visit in Ecuador.

Can you imagine any more bishops remaining in office until age 72?
Any more than what? If a bishop is elected at an age when he or she still has a lot of energy and imagination, age 65 may well be an appropriate time to retire. If a bishop wants to hang in until age 72, God bless him or her. The example of our Roman cousins does not suggest that having a large gang of ancient bishops is particularly healthy for the church.

Whatever became of Wednesday night services during Lent?
What became of them in your parish? In our parish we have a Wednesday evening Eucharist every week, and during Lent it was followed by a light potluck supper and a variety of study groups. The turnout was very good.

Why is the word “Pit” capitalized twice in Psalm 88?
“The Pit” is not just any old hole in the ground, but is a place of destruction; Hebrew bor. Same general sense as “Sheol.”

Why aren’t advocates for prayer book revision clamoring for a revised book?
Aren’t they? Actually, there are some who would like some increased flexibility, but I’m not aware of anyone who really wants to change the present book at this time.

Does anyone like “blended” worship?
What do you mean by “blended” worship? Please tell me what it is, and I will tell you whether or not I like it.

Are same-sex blessings supposed to be listed in parochial reports? Under what category?
There was some discussion recently on the House of Bishops/Deputies e-mail list. The consensus at the moment from the folks at 815 seems to be that such blessings can be counted as “other services” but not as “marriages.” This raises (again) the issue of what the relationship should be between the Church’s Celebration and Blessing of a Marriage and the recording of a marriage by the state.

Will there be any more evangelicals left in The Episcopal Church by 2010?
What do you mean by “evangelicals”? If you mean people who are seriously committed to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, then the Church is and will be full of them. If you mean neocalvinists who are more religious than God, I hope not.

Doesn’t anyone care about these bishops leaving for the Roman Catholic Church?
Yes, a lot of us care. We’re sorry about them, but we wish them Godspeed, and we appreciate the fact that they chose to follow their consciences without beating anyone else over the head with them.

Wouldn’t it have made sense to stay off the internet as a Lenten discipline?
Probably! And in fact some people did. (Alas, not me.) The internet is like many valuable things — easily abused, but abusus non tollit usus, as Thomas Aquinas (excuse me, St. Thomas Aquinas) said in De Interretio.

Whatever became of the Windsor bishops?
Yes, I was wondering that myself. Possibly they realized that the Windsor Report contains less than meets the eye. Except perhaps to +Rowan.

Aren’t more churches offering Stations of the Cross?
Compared to when? Compared to when I was young? Yes. And that’s good.

Why do so many people omit the word “St.” before the names of saints?
Who knows? It may depend on context. About which contexts are you asking?

Don’t you wonder what’s going on in our seminaries?
Yes, at times. I wonder about different things at different seminaries.

Did any of our clergy preach on the epistle for Lent 4?
I did. Well, actually it was as much about the gospel as about the epistle, but still…. It seems generally desirable to relate all the readings to the extent that it’s possible.

Did any parish observe “Rose Sunday”?
The parish where I was supplying did. My home parish did, I understand, but borrowed vestments from a neighboring parish that wasn’t using them this year. It’s my impression that there are more rose vestments around the Episcopal Church nowadays than there were forty or fifty years ago. The Dean’s Oratory at Nashotah House has (or had) a very lovely set of rose vestments. Most other rose vestments are pink.

Whatever became of those people who were pushing for lay presidency?
And what makes you think anything has “become of” them? This is a Sydney hobbyhorse. At the moment Archbishop Jensen is all caught up in being anti-Lambeth and trying to put together GAFCON, and I doubt that very many of his cronies have any interest in lay presidency (they are much too clericalist for that!). I don’t doubt that after Lambeth this issue will emerge from Sydney again.

Isn’t the church’s outreach ministry stronger than it’s ever been?
Yes.

Wouldn’t some new sites for General Convention have been welcome instead of returning to Anaheim and Indianapolis?
Well, yes, but bear in mind that there aren’t very many venues in the United States that can handle a convention of the size and time of our General Convention. Is there a venue in Milwaukee that can handle the GC? Some might say, well, then, let’s cut drastically back on the number of deputies! But how many lay deputies are saying that? Sounds like a way of constricting lay participation in the governance of the Church, if you ask me.

Do you care whether an Anglican Covenant is put in place?
Depends on the Covenant. The St. Andrews draft is better but still has a long way to go. I remain unconvinced that a covenant — especially of the sort that some are advocating — would do more good than harm.

Which of the seminaries will be the next to make a major announcement?
I don’t know. I find it troubling. But it does suggest that we need to take a very thorough and probably radical look at theological education in general and the education of candidates for holy orders in particular.

Are you aware that the index to the latest edition (2006) of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church (p. 260) lists one of the “Duties of the Rector” as “To distribute arms and offerings”?
I hadn’t noticed that, actually! But then, let the one who has never committed a typo cast the first stone.

Aren’t churches without websites missing a great opportunity to attract visitors and newcomers?
Yes.

Do you sometimes have trouble understanding what the Archbishop of Canterbury is writing or saying?
Frequently. His theology, spirituality, and poetry are difficult but rewarding. The archbishoppy stuff, not so much.

Wasn’t it hard to get started in Lent with it falling so early in the year?
Not really. It was a welcome change from shoveling snow.

Shouldn’t the Southern Cone be called something else?
This is their decision, not ours. What do you want to call them? La Provincia Anglicana del Cono Sur is perfectly sensible in Spanish; if it sounds funny in English, that’s our problem. “El Cono Sur” is a standard geographical designation (not just Anglican or ecclesiastical) for the nations at the southern end of South America.

Why does the national Executive Council need to have all those closed sessions?
How many sessions are “all those closed”? I assume it’s because (1) some issues, like personnel, really are confidential; (2) they get tired of the press whining. As Jesus said, “Let anyone with shoes that fit wear them.”

Why do some clergy insist upon addressing a communicant by name when administering communion?
Why not, if they can? (I have a hard enough time remembering my own name, so I don’t try.)

What’s the harm in including those portions of the psalms bracketed by the prayer book lectionary?
No harm, generally, and I suspect most of us routinely include them in the Daily Office. Those who are bitter and vindictive, and assume that God is also bitter and vindictive, should certainly make a point of including them. On the other hand, if I were celebrating Morning Prayer with the parish Sunday School teachers before a meeting on the Saturday of week seven, I might choose to leave out 137:7-9.

Whatever became of the Great Litany?
The last I saw of it, it was still on page 148. A lot of parishes use it on Advent 1 and Lent 1. Easter 6 is also good. Granted, this isn’t quite what Cranmer directed (after Matins on Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays), but we finally admitted in 1928 that we weren’t going to do that.

Who are Oreb and Zeeb? How about Zebah and Zalmunna?
My favorite Biblical characters. The two generals and the two kings of Midian, whom Gideon killed in battle. Judges 7-8. A charming story, that gives literalist biblical interpretation its pizzazz.

Aren’t these attachments by congregations to foreign Anglican provinces temporary arrangements?
We wish. And in the long run that’s probably how it will end up, but it won’t be neat and tidy.

Why do so many church mailings refer to “Easter Sunday” rather than “Easter Day”?
How many is “so many”? Ours didn’t.

Have a blessed Eastertide!

Primates

2008-02-24T19:28:00.001-06:00

What the heck is all this deal with “Primates” in the Anglican Communion? Where did these people come from, and who do they think they are?

Well, of course in a sense they have been around for a long time. The Archbishop of Canterbury is the “Primate of All England,” and the Archbishop of York is the “Primate of England.” (That’s quaint. How English!) In imitation whereof, presumably, the Archbishop of Armagh is the “Primate of All Ireland” and the Archbishop of Dublin is the “Primate of Ireland.” The Scottish Episcopal Church has a “Primus” rather than a Primate. But since “Primus” is simply a Latin variant for “Primate,” more or less, it’s not clear what real difference it makes. Except that the chief Scottish bishop is somewhat less likely to be confused with one of the Pongidae, which is probably advantageous. But back in the Olden Days, we didn’t have a Primate in the Episcopal Church. We had a Presiding Bishop. If I remember correctly, our first Presiding Bishop to be designated as our “Primate” and to be styled “The Most Reverend” was John Allin in the early 1980’s. (I think we were feeling left out.)

Maybe this was related to the fact that along about this time, the Anglican Communion first started having Primates’ Meetings. We had never done that before. Lambeth Conferences had seemed organizationally entirely adequate for the previous century, supplemented with such splendid parties as the Anglican Congresses of 1908, 1954, and 1963, and several Anglo-Catholic Congresses in the 1920’s and 30’s.

And in fact it seems entirely reasonable to me, since it is probably not practical for the Lambeth Conference to meet more frequently than once a decade, that the Primates of the constituent Churches of the Anglican Communion should get together more frequently to pray and talk and share about how things were going. (Actually, many of these bishops apparently did not become “Primates” until they started having “Primates’ Meetings.” They had simply been Archbishops Metropolitan, or Presiding Bishops. England, Ireland, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand were the only Churches with “Primates” before then.)

Well, that’s okay. I’m perfectly fine with the idea that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori is our Chief Pastor and Primate. (Actually, I kind of like the title “Primus,” and since we initially received the episcopate from the Scottish church it would seem appropriate to use that. Except that +Katharine would be the “Prima,” and then some dumbwit would make jokes about “prima donnas.” I have had the honor to meet Bishop Katharine, and she is no prima donna. For that matter, most of the leading operatic sopranos in the world are not “prima donnas” either: they are very talented, charming, and thoughtful women. But I digress.)

But now all of a sudden the Primates’ Meeting, originally designed to be interim consultations between Lambeth Conferences, has erupted as a Curial Authority! They are now one of the Anglican Instruments of Communion. Who says??!! How did that slip by without anybody taking much appropriate notice? This looks a lot like a fait accompli, and I say it is not too late to say, “Wait just a minute here!” As I said at the beginning, who do they think they are?

I think it will be entirely sufficient for the Anglican Communion to have three Instruments of Communion:

1. The Archbishop of Canterbury;
2. The Lambeth Conference (of bishops);
3. The Anglican Consultative Council (comprised of laity, clergy and bishops).

Again, it’s perfectly appropriate that the Primates (Moderators, Presiding Bishops, Archbishops Metropolitan, whatever) meet regularly to share joys and concerns. But they do not have and should not have executive or legislative authority. I suggest that they study and meditate on Mark 10:41-45 and Romans 12:3.

Comments on the St Andrew’s Draft for an Anglican Covenant will be forthcoming.

The Curmudgeon.

Hospitality and Inclusiveness

2008-02-24T16:38:00.000-06:00

One of the virtues enjoined in the New Testament on Christians is “hospitality.” Romans, 1 Timothy, Titus, 1 Peter, Hebrews (“for thus some have entertained angels unaware” — possibly a reference to Abraham in Genesis 18 and Lot in Genesis 19). But there comes a time…

A man held a great party. He invited everyone he knew, and everyone who happened by he invited in, even though he did not know them. And a wonderful time was had by all. But one of the guests was very rude. He insulted the other guests and criticized the host’s choice of friends. He derided the host’s taste in the artwork that decorated his house. He was disrespectful to the host’s wife and spoke abusively to the host’s daughter. He gobbled down great quantities of the hors d’oeuvres before anyone else had a chance to partake. He spilled his beverage on the carpet, and left the wet glass on the table without using a coaster. When he went to the bathroom he peed on the toilet rim and did not put the seat down when he was finished. The host finally said, “It is time for you to leave now.”

+Katharine, who is a nicer person, would probably have put it differently. She would probably have said, “It is time for you to leave now, please.”

Depositions and Resignations

2008-02-22T09:31:00.000-06:00

A group of our area clergy were meeting with the Bishop the other day — a sort of news-and-sharing session that we have a couple of times a year — and the subject of various aspects of Adventures in Anglicanland came up. A number of us expressed some unease at the “rush toward deposition” that seems to be underway (and for a lot of observers in the Church it is not a moment too soon). As nearly as I could tell, no one had any sympathy with any of the Usual Suspects; the issue was whether deposition, especially on the charge of abandoning the communion of this church, is the best way to deal with them.

One of our members was formerly (and still is, part-time) a professor of a biomedical science in the University, and as such she not only taught but also directed a research laboratory (with NIH funding). Thus she has experience managing a staff, and understands the ins and outs of human resources. (To the extent anyone does!) She briefly recounted an instance in which a staff member was seriously “not with the program” and was erratic in issues like attendance, taking unapproved time off, etc. After several efforts to address this unacceptable pattern, the lab management staff finally wrote to this employee, stating specifically, “If you are not at work on such-and-such a day at such-and-such a time, or submit in advance a clearly acceptable excuse, we will interpret that as your resignation from your position.” In this case the employee did not comply with the given direction, was declared to have resigned, and (despite a brief protest by the employee) the Human Resources offices of the College and the University sustained the department’s action.

This was very similar to some issues my wife has had to deal with. She is the director of a child care center, operated by an international child care chain under contract from the University Hospital. Most of her staff are hardworking, caring preschool teachers. But occasionally one of her people will “not be with the program,” and not respond appropriately to repeated (and documented) correction. At this point my wife will instruct the staff member that further failure to conform to expectations will be interpreted as resignation. (All of this is done not only with the knowledge and approval of the national human resources office, but with their advice and counsel.) “Oh, no, I didn’t really want to resign!” is generally regarded as “too late, too bad.”

Well, now the Episcopal Church has a bishop (with two or three or four more standing in line) who has purported to leave the Episcopal Church and to take his diocese with him, submitting to the jurisdiction of a different Anglican province. This bishop has been charged with abandoning the communion of this church and has been inhibited, with the consent of the three senior diocesan bishops in the Church. (Note: the canons mean “the communion of this church,” namely, the Episcopal Church, not just “the communion of any church.” A different Anglican province does not count, except by explicit authorization by the General Convention. The Sons and Daughters of I Will Arise don’t count, either.) Presumably this bishop’s deposition will be voted by the House of Bishops next month. Meanwhile another bishop has also been charged with abandoning the communion, though the gun is not smoking as much and this bishop has not been inhibited, although he is still subject to deposition by the House of Bishops. And, as I indicated, there are other bishops waiting in the wings.

Although the pending instances probably should just proceed to their conclusion, I wonder if it might not be wiser in the future to avoid the “abandonment” road (which in any case was not really designed for this kind of situation) and instead for the PB simply to state, after due formal notice (as she has given in these situations), that certain behaviors, such as attempting or purporting to abscond with one’s diocese to the Sons and Daughters, or whoever, will constitute resignation from one’s see, effective immediately. No claim is made at this point about deposition from holy orders. The bishop in this case simply becomes a “resigned bishop,” or, probably in this case, a “resigned but fussing and whining bishop.” (The House of Bishops has to accept the resignation, but I believe that farther than three months out from a HOB meeting, it can be done by correspondence.) Since the resignation is not for reason of age, disability, national office, or mission strategy as determined by the General Convention or the House of Bishops, the bishop would no longer have seat and vote in the House, particularly if the bishop were to become a member of the House of Bishops of another province. It would still be possible down the line, if it seems appropriate, to charge the bishop with violations of the canons and of ordination vows, but in the meanwhile the bishop is out of office without the untidiness of formal charges. Anyone who wants to go with the bishop to wherever the bishop is going may do so, but they have to leave the diocese and its parishes behind. The diocese can then get on with electing a new bishop to lead them in their mission. In short, the bishop is not deposed, but the bishop ceases to be Our Problem.

I am reminded of the gangster Al Capone, who by all accounts was guilty of multiple murders in Chicago in the late 20’s and early 30’s. But the state could not prove those charges, so the federal government successfully prosecuted him for evasion of income tax. Not very satisfying, but under the circumstances it did the job.

On the other hand, a small voice in the back of my mind keeps whispering, “Why don’t you just take these bozos out behind the barn and thrash them soundly?” A better voice immediately intervenes, “No! No! We can’t do that! WWJD?” And then a third voice comes from somewhere up there, “”Well, at least not yet, anyway.”

Good line from a movie

2008-01-10T15:40:00.000-06:00

Yesterday I was watching the DVD of the film The Bridge to Terabithia, which I had missed when it was released to the theaters. Some will be aware that it is the story -- charming and poignant, from a book about 30 years back written by Katherine Paterson -- of Jess, a boy who lives in a rural setting, and Leslie, a new neighbor girl who has just moved from the city with her parents. (Excellent movie, and it's my intent to read the book.)

Jess invites Leslie to come to church with him one Sunday. (Leslie's family are not churchgoers.) On the way home they are talking about the day's Bible lesson, and Jess and his little sister comment that you have to believe the Bible or God will damn you to hell. (Gee, where have we heard that before?...) Leslie responds, "You have to believe it, and you hate it. I don't have to believe it, and I think it's beautiful."

Ex ore infantium....

Dave Walker's SPCK Posts

2008-01-01T18:57:00.001-06:00

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

the great spck scandalbloggers stick it to the man
This is a Dave Walker Solidarity Post:It is a load of saved posts that Dave has been bullied into taking down off his blog.PLEASE COPY AND POST ON YOUR BLOGSWe will not be silenced by bad people;- there are too many of us.SPCK / SSG Bookshop PostsJuly 8th, 2008My silenceI’ve been aware that this has been a sad week for many readers of the Cartoon Blog. Many of those visiting have been mourning the death of Steve Jeynes, the Worcester bookseller, who, judging from the comments posted on this site was loved by many. In the circumstances the usual nonsense that I write on this site has not seemed appropriate, hence my silence.The memorial service for Steve Jeynes took place yesterday. The Worcester News has a report: Tributes paid to exceptional man. Doug Chaplain was there and has written about it. See also on the SPCK/SSG blog: Steve Jeynes: A Life Remembered.This will be one of the last former-SPCK-related posts that I expect to do until September as I am away doing one thing and another. I have one more bookshop-related thing that I need to post about which has arisen as a result of a comment (not yet visible) on this site on Sunday morning. I will hopefully do that post today (Tuesday) or tomorrow (Wednesday).The place to go for former-SPCK-related posts for the next month or two is SPCK/SSG: News, Notes & Info. [Aside to Phil: hopefully you will post Plans Coming Together for New Christian Bookshop in Cardiff on the SSG/SPCK site when the time is right - a post well worth sharing.]I hope to post a bit more on this blog this week, including an announcement about my new book and plans for Lambeth.Posted by Dave at 1:06 am on July 8, 2008 and filed under Blogging, Save the SPCK.5 CommentsJuly 3rd, 2008Memorial service for Steve JeynesThe memorial service for Steve Jeynes is now to be held at Worcester Cathedral at 3.30pm on Monday 7th July, followed by refreshments at Worcestershire County Cricket Club.There is a news item in the Worcester News today, and another in the Worcester Standard. Update: Also Worcester News: Hundreds expected to bookseller’s memorialMany tributes have been left in the comments of my previous post and on other sites linked from there.Image: the former SPCK shop in WorcesterPosted by Dave at 7:57 am on July 3, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK.No CommentsJune 27th, 2008SPCK / SSG: Tragic news from WorcesterThere is some tragic news from the Worcester Diocese. This note was sent out today to clergy within the Diocese by the Communications department:I am very sorry to tell you that Steve Jeynes, has been found dead, apparently having taken his own life. Many of you will know him from his work at the SSGT (ex-SPCK) shop in Worcester, from where he was made redundant two weeks ago.Please hold (the) family in your prayers, together with the many friends whose lives have been enriched through Steve’s loving generosity in serving the Lord.Details of the funeral arrangements will be made available in due course.Doug Chaplain has posted here: In Worcester the SSG / SPCK saga turns to tragedyPlease remember Steve’s family, friends and all affected in your prayers.Update: A service of Thanksgiving for Steve’s life will take place on Monday 7 July 2008 at 3:30 pm at All Saints’ Church, Deansway, Worcester. The Thanksgiving Service has been moved from All Saints’ Church to the Cathedral at 3.30pm on Monday 7th July followed by refreshments at Worcestershire County Cricket Club.Further tributes have been posted here and here.Posted by Dave at 5:53 pm on June 27, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.65 CommentsSPCK / SSG bookshop newsA couple of things:New websitePhil Groom has set up a new group blog on the subject of the former SPCK shops. It is here: SPCK/SSG: News, Notes & Info. If you’re interested in SPCK/ SSG updates please bookmark this site and/or subscribe to the feed. I do intend to continue writing on the subject on this blog, but during July and August in particular I will have very little (if any) time to devote to writing on the topic owing to my preparation for and participation in the Lambeth conference and being away from home for various other reasons.If there is anyone who would like to contribute to the new site please contact Phil directly.Staff payAn update to my last post - some staff have now been paid. I have made an update to my last post to reflect this and will update again if it emerges that all staff have now been paid.News reportsBookseller: SSG tribunal claims mountChester Chronicle: Union action to support sacked Chester bookshop workersLincolnshire Echo: ‘Sacked’ shop staff in court actionPosted by Dave at 9:09 am on June 27, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.3 CommentsJune 25th, 2008SSG: Bankruptcy papers received, employees not paidBankruptcy papers receivedSome people in the UK have been receiving papers relating to the SSG ‘bankruptcy’ from the US Bankruptcy Court of the District of Southern District of Texas. There will apparently be a ‘meeting of creditors’ on 22 July in Houston.Having done a quick search I notice that there was, on 18 June a ’status conference’ for St Stephen the Great LLC in the bankruptcy court (this can be found on a cached Google page saved here). Information on the chapter 11 bankruptcy process can be found via this page: Chapter 11 - Bankruptcy BasicsAll of this must be seen in the light of Usdaw’s statement yesterday, now available on the Usdaw website:Usdaw firmly believes that the bankruptcy proceedings in the US have no effect in the UK, because this is a UK company with entirely UK-based assets and activities.Also, from John Hannett, the General Secretary of Usdaw:These loyal staff are being given misleading information about these US bankruptcy proceedings and the effects this may have on their rights to take legal action in the UK. Our fear is that the Brewers’ actions may be an attempt to move assets away from the business and out of the reach of our members with legitimate claims.“We will carry on as before with the claims against the Brewers who are accumulating wealth whilst riding roughshod over hard working employees. We will continue to assist all our members affected by this messy situation and work to rectify it as soon as possible.”Employees not paidOn a related note some (all?) of the people who work or worked in the shops have not been paid today (the 25th) as they would usually be. See for instance these blog comments. [Update: some employees have now been paid]Telegraph blog postChristopher Howse (who wrote Saturday’s comment piece) has written on his Telegraph blog about the Orthodox church in Poole: Orthodox Exodus. As others have pointed out this isn’t new information, but I thought I’d post the link anyway.Posted by Dave at 3:05 pm on June 25, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.13 CommentsJune 24th, 2008Usdaw press release about the former SPCK shopsUsdaw fights for mistreated bookshop workersShopworkers’ union, Usdaw, has submitted 15 employment tribunal claims against the Brewers, US-based brothers who have taken over a chain of UK bookshops and were seeking to impose a new contract on staff, drastically reducing their contractual rights. The Union has over 50 members at the bookshops and is expecting that the number of employment tribunal claims will rise.The Brewer brothers were gifted the St. Stephen the Great Christian bookshops in 2006 by SPCK. The chain includes 23 bookshops, many of which are historic buildings in prime retail positions.Following the change of ownership, a new contract was drawn up increasing the working week from 37.5 to 40 hours with no additional pay, turning all part-time staff into casual staff with no guaranteed hours every week and taking away all rights to company sick pay.Now, virtually all Usdaw members have been dismissed with no notice, some by email, and have received little or no information about what this means for their rights and their pay.The Brewer brothers have now filed St. Stephen the Great for bankruptcy in the US. Usdaw firmly believes that the bankruptcy proceedings in the US have no effect in the UK, because this is a UK company with entirely UK-based assets and activities. Staff have been told that they can apply for jobs with ENC Management Company, which is also owned by the Brewers, but that they no longer have jobs with St. Stephen the Great.Usdaw is also aware that the Charity Commission has been alerted to these actions because of its role in regulating the activities of the linked charity, St. Stephen the Great Charitable Trust.John Hannett, Usdaw General Secretary, stated:“It is clear that staff, many of whom have been long standing loyal workers, have been mistreated and many are understandably very upset and concerned. We are very concerned at a new company (ENC Management Company) being set up in these circumstances, while our members are losing their jobs. These loyal staff are being given misleading information about these US bankruptcy proceedings and the effects this may have on their rights to take legal action in the UK. Our fear is that the Brewers’ actions may be an attempt to move assets away from the business and out of the reach of our members with legitimate claims.“We will carry on as before with the claims against the Brewers who are accumulating wealth whilst riding roughshod over hard working employees. We will continue to assist all our members affected by this messy situation and work to rectify it as soon as possible.”EndsSt. Stephen the Great shops at which Usdaw members are affected:§ Cambridge§ Carlisle§ Chester§ Exeter§ Lincoln§ Newcastle§ Norwich§ Sheffield§ Worcester§ YorkUsdaw is the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied WorkersUpdate: This press release is now available via the Usdaw website: Usdaw fights for mistreated bookshop workersPosted by Dave at 8:13 am on June 24, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.34 CommentsJune 21st, 2008Former SPCK bookshops in the TelegraphChristopher Howse: The bare and desolate SPCK bookshopsPosted by Dave at 9:57 am on June 21, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.5 CommentsJune 20th, 2008Today’s former SPCK bookshop newsFrom the Chester Chronicle: Christian bookshop sacks staff by e-mailFrom the Eastern Daily Press: Christian bookshop stripped of stockFrom the comments below:The article in the Eastern Daily Press concerning the Norwich shop mentions three potential future tenants.One of the bids is from the Norwich Christian Resource Centre, a new Community Interest Company with six directors from various denominations, all with a wealth of business experience.They are giving their time and talents free of charge and are all passionate to re-establish the centre that had become such an integral part of the community of Norfolk and beyond, as quoted in the article.The company would run as a non-profit making business and strive to return the centre to it’s original ethos, offering the widest breadth of stock, knowledgable staff, a high level of customer service and the ‘best capuccino in town’.Prayers for this venture very welcome.Also, from the comments yesterday, this by ‘concerned dad’:My daughter applied for holiday work via an agency in Newcastle and took up a job in the Newcastle shop - we were completely unaware of the situation. She is expected to work completely on her own for 6 hours a day several days a week, somebody else does the other days - both are temps, no permanent staff, no training or guidance. She has creditors and people chasing book orders ringing up but no information to be able to respond to them. She is employed and paid by the agency (that is the theory anyway, will be interesting to find out what happens on payday!) If we had known about the situation we would not have got into this, but the agency were not very forthcoming with details about the shop until it was virtually too late…. So Newcastle is open - after a fashion, but far from satisfactory situation.Update (lunchtime) Phil Groom has posted: SPCK/SSG News Archives. (I’ll try to say something about the blog idea later or over the weekend.)Posted by Dave at 8:18 am on June 20, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.6 CommentsJune 19th, 2008Website updatesThe SPCKonline website is now the same as the Third Space books website. Details of most shops have been updated. Some, like Salisbury (above - thanks to ezlxq), are on very limited hours and appear to be relying on voluntary labour. I’m aware that I need to keep updating the shop roundup page - updates appreciated.The entry for the Norwich shop says ‘You are not authorised to view this resource’. That is probably because there is no resource to view - I am informed that a removal firm packed up all the books, fixtures and fittings and was taking them to the Chichester shop today.Meanwhile the St Stephen the Great LLC website has been updated today “Last Updated ( Thursday, 19 June 2008 )“, but there is still no mention of the ‘bankruptcy’.I have updated the Church Times blog with a list of news reports and letters about the former SPCK shops.Melanie, the former manager of the SPCKonline site has written an interesting comment on Phil’s bookshop blog.Posted by Dave at 5:43 pm on June 19, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.5 CommentsJune 18th, 2008Norwich / YorkNorwichNetwork Norwich has the following: Norwich Christian bookshop closes its doorsMeanwhile, from the comments section of this blog:In 2003 I was taken to a city centre deconsecrated church by Stephen Platten, then Dean of Norwich. We both thought how splendid it would be to relocate the SPCK Bookshop, it’s decrepid premises huddling in a side street, to this magnificent medieval building.In January of the next year Bishop Graham James officially blessed the vision along with representatives from virtually every denomination.After many trials and tribulations and delays of several months, the centre opened on 13 July 2004. I had been privileged to help plan the layout and the concept.Over 180 people attended the rededictation of the church to it’s new use in on a Friday morning in October 2004!Within 3 years the loyal team had doubled the turnover of the previous shop and provided access to thousands of visitors from the Christian faith or none, to be offered an exceptionally broad range of product, a place to meet and be refreshed in the cafe.We held events on a monthly basis. Highlights included: a lecture by Bishop Tom Wright attended by 350 plus, an Advent evening with Ronald Blythe during which three Salvation Army bandsmen managed to ascend the spiral staircase complete with trombone and play from the balcony, debates between bishops and humanists; Professor Brian Thorne and Ian Gibson MP and a Fawlty Towers evening!This morning I visited the centre with my two sons, on the last day of trading. It was in fact open after 11-00.To describe it as semi-vandalised would not be overstating the sight of half-empty boxes relocated from the London shop several weeks ago still blocking the porch and what is left of the stock lurching across the shelves.Visiting the church on a regular basis over the past months I have been moved from frustration, to anger, to sadness, to disbelief as to how such a thiving resource could be laid to seed.Today is a very sad day for the ex-staff, all but one of whom have yet to find new employment and the Christian community, who are voicing that ‘their’ centre has been lost - a high compliment indeed.I count myself blessed to have been offered an alternative position within the Christian retail environment and have thus stayed in touch with so many of my customers who had become friends.However, it’s never over until the Canary sings as we say in Narwich, so please keep praying for an unlikely resurrection in the not too distant future.‘The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not overcome it’York‘Richard and Gill’ on Flickr have a recent picture of the former SPCK shop in York.Meanwhile, I found this blog post written in Chinese on June 16. It sounds as if it is by someone working in the York shop. Google translated it as follows:I should be very fortunate, at least in this area to work, to York the second week, it began a career Part-time job. However, this is not so much a subjective initiative, I found, than to use a blind cat encountered more aptly described as dead mice. At that time, purely in the City Centre Luancuan, Okay, I admit that, in fact, I had lost. The results of the accidents that have been in SPCK work.This is one in the entire United Kingdom has 28 Chain stores of the Christian Bookshop, a harmonious working atmosphere, have fixed the breakfast 11am and 3pm the afternoon tea time and all the break are paid. However, however, however, but, boom is not long, SPCK be acquired. A U.S. company called SSG took over the bookstore this. British indeed are born of hatred of Americans, the shop all the old staff have left, but Fortunately, the Manager of new people is pretty good. I want to go to the SSG, also by the nature of the work before the development of a simple cashier to accountant, gradually began to contact the bank’s work. Sense of accomplishment that is not an ordinary Youranersheng ah.Boom is not really long, SSG recently went bankrupt, another bookstore was an American company take over. David and Olga have left, I left the bookstore on the people. Optimistic, I am now boss hey. Pessimistic, I really do not know Bookstore will close on this, I have on unemployment.SPCK in the UK with my life is inseparable from, I Baijia all have come from the capital where wages. However, it also sacrificed a lot with my family Dear Amanda travel out of time. Switzerland, Rome, Prague, Barcelona, Fuluolunsa I have no time to. My dear SPCK, you can see in my youth to take all the copies to you, will not be so quick to close OK. You, and so I kept enough money to the United States, Greece, the Netherlands, Sweden, the Arctic Circle, and so I kept enough money to buy Chanel, Dior, Fendi, Prada to the temporary close it, but I travel back and so on, then opened the door for ahThis might or might not mean that the York shop is open.Posted by Dave at 11:28 am on June 18, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK.3 CommentsJune 13th, 2008Charity Commission to investigate SSGNews reportsFrom today’s Church Times: Ex-SPCK shops ‘bankruptcy’The Bookseller says that the Charity Commission is to investigate SSG: St Stephen the Great files for bankruptcyI think the Church of England Newspaper will have a report (Just opened my online copy - nothing there as far as I can see. I thought there might be as I was telephoned.)Closures and openingsWe think that the shops that have closed since the bankruptcy announcement are:Birmingham, Canterbury, Chester, Exeter, Newcastle, Norwich (closing on June 14) Worcester, York. These may be temporary or permanent.Salisbury is now open again.I’m still attempting to maintain a complete list here.New mapOn the Third Space books site (Is Third Space books bankrupt or not? Not sure.) a new map of the SSG shops appeared on June 7. Bristol, Carlisle, Lincoln and London have been taken off. Cardiff remains. ‘Leichester’ (not on the old map) has been added.Posted by Dave at 8:20 am on June 13, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.11 CommentsJune 11th, 2008Former SPCK bookshop closuresI have been attempting to update my SPCK bookshop roundup page. Please take a look and tell me whether I am being accurate.In the last few days I have been told that the following shops have been closed, but some of these closures might be temporary:Chester (Local news report: Christian bookshop closes in Chester city centre)Exeter (Notice on door says it is due to reopen - photo above)NewcastleSalisbury Now open againWorcesterYorkPosted by Dave at 6:11 pm on June 11, 2008 and filed under Save the SPCK, Religion.19 Comments
Posted by MadPriest at 12:19 PM

Oops. Jesus made a mistake.

2007-12-30T19:00:00.000-06:00

In reviewing the Gospel for the Feast of St. Stephen the other day, it occurred to me (well, it had occurred to me many times over the past many years, but usually I just didn't pay much attention) that Jesus made a mistake. He referred to "all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar." Of course he was referring to the first murder in the canonical Hebrew Bible (Genesis 4) and the last (2 Chronicles 24; 2 Chron. is the last book in the Hebrew arrangement). But it isn't Zechariah ben Barachiah, who is the prophet who presumably wrote the Book of Zechariah, it's Zechariah ben Jehoiada (his father Jehoiada was high priest at the time of King Joash of Judah), who was stoned in the temple courtyard at Joash's orders.

Well, maybe Jesus didn't make the mistake. Maybe Matthew made the mistake. The mistake doesn't occur in Luke's version, so either Matthew added the mistake or Luke corrected it from the earlier Jesus tradition. In either case, Matthew 23:35 contains a mistake.

Is this a trivial mistake? Absolutely! (The New Oxford Annotated Bible notes the error, explains it, but does not make a big fat hairy deal of it, as well it shouldn't.)

And my point is...?

The text of the Bible contains errors. Some of them are utterly inconsequential, and not worth a lot of discussion. Some of them may be more significant, and worth some careful reflection.

In any case, folks who claim to believe in a literally inerrant Bible need to get honest, or get smart, or both.

As God says to such folks, "You really just don't get it, do you?"

Don Hanway's book

2007-12-19T13:01:00.000-06:00

I'm often a little annoyed at myself when I tardily discover a book I wish I had noticed a year earlier. Such a one is Donald G. Hanway's A Theology of Gay and Lesbian Inclusion: Love Letters to the Church (Haworth Pastoral Press, 2006 -- also available through the usual online booksellers). It's a solidly scriptural work (more solidly scriptural in my estimation than the frantic anti-gay arguments of the self-proclaimed "orthodox"), and it really isn't about "sexuality" but about Jesus, and the Gospel, and people. A fine book both for clergy and laity, and for parish study groups. The "blurbs" on the back include brief pre-reviews by Bishop Steven Charleston and by Tobias Heller (well known in this corner of the blogosphere!).

Don and I were neighbors, colleagues and friends in southwestern Nebraska back in The Olden Days. I went off in my various directions, and Don ended up spending the bulk of his ministry (before his recent retirement) at St. Mark's On The Campus in Lincoln, Nebraska. Aside from annual Christmas cards we haven't been much in touch in recent years, which I regret, and am grateful to have finally discovered this book. It comes out of many years of pastoral ministry, including many gay and lesbian persons, students and others, both inside the Church and outside. I commend it enthusiastically.

Prayers at Lessons & Carols

2007-12-14T16:36:00.000-06:00

I am reminded that at the Advent or Christmas Lessons and Carols, in which many of us have participated already or will be participating between now and Christmas Eve, we are bidden to pray for "all who know not the Lord Jesus, or who love him not, or who by sin have grieved his heart of love."

Yes, that may include "us" as well as "them"....

Anglikanerdämmerung

2007-12-09T15:33:00.000-06:00

Several thoughts occurred to me this weekend, particularly as we follow the news of the departure of members of the Diocese of San Joaquin to join the Sons of I Will Arise, and the word from Canterbury continues to be "B'rer Rowan, he don' say nuffin'."

A few days ago we had a jolly chat over at MadPriest's place about opera, which MadPriest hates. I had commented that watching DVD productions of a couple of the dramas from the Ring of the Nibelung (instead of just listening while trying to follow in the libretto) had given me a greater appreciation of Wagner (though I'm still not quite a fan!). I also have been re-reading (after a lapse of many many years) Stewart Robb's English translation of Wagner's text.

I was reading through Act Two of The Valkyrie, in which Wotan and Fricka are having a great spat, because Wotan has seen to it that his son Siegmund has found the charmed sword Nothung, which he will use to kill Hunding, with whose wife Sieglinda Siegmund is running away. (Sieglinda is also Siegmund's twin sister. Don't ask. Or rather, ask Anna Russell. A lot of that kind of thing was going on in those days.) But Fricka, whose goddess portfolio includes marriage, is all ticked off about this, and she finally browbeats Wotan into agreeing to give up Siegmund and, as it were, to throw him under the bus. In the midst of all this Wotan laments the fact that he ever got messed up with Alberich and the ring Alberich had forged out of the Rheingold (after forswearing love, in order to become master of the universe; see the previous opera), and recognized that in fact he and the rest of the gods and Valhalla itself were all ultimately doomed (although that takes two more operas).

And I got to thinking: Gee. This reminds me a little of a certain Archbishop of Canterbury I could think of. Hmm.....

Schism

2007-11-25T16:36:00.000-06:00

In an article on the National Post about the recent meeting of the Anglican Network of Canada in Burlington, Ontario, Charles Lewis quoted J. I. Packer, a well known, senior evangelical scholar:

"Schism means unwarranted and unjustified separation from the rest of the Church, causing an indefensible breach of unity. Those who are unfaithful to the heritage are the schismatics. It is not we who are the schismatics."

Professor Packer has surely been around long enough to realize that every schismatic in the history of Christianity has claimed that "we" are not the schismatics, "they" are the schismatics. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Apparently the Anglican Network of Canada, led by retired episcopal defectors Donald Harvey and Malcomb Harding, is planning to break from the Anglican Church of Canada and to join the Sons and Daughters of I Will Arise (also known as the Province of the Southern Cone of America), which has been trolling for disaffected dioceses, bishops, parishes, and money in North America.

Packer claims that the Anglican Church of Canada has been "poisoned" by "liberalism." This seems to mean primarily the willingness to consider blessing the unions of same-sex couples. However, "The homosexual issue is just the tip of the iceberg," said Cheryl Chang, a board member of the Anglican Network. "It is what's under the water that is more critical to us. The liberals see the Bible as a book that can be changed and interpreted, and conservatives see it as unchangeable through generations. And those are simply irreconcilable views."

Yeah, they probably are. I find it incredible that these folks think that the idea that the Bible must be "interpreted" is a "liberal" notion, and that seeing the Bible as "unchangeable through generations" is "conservative" (rather than 1. false and two 2. stupid).

One difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is that "liberals" hope very much that the "conservatives" will stay and argue their point of view vigorously. The "conservatives," on the other hand, or at least many of them, would rather stomp off in a self-righteous hypcritical huff and then accuse the "liberals" of being "schismatic."

It's getting a little tiresome.

Thanks to epiScope for pointing to this article. http://episcopalchurch.typepad.com/episcope/anglican_church_of_canada/index.html

The National Post article is at http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=edcc8a09-290a-4b61-90c2-76d7afd08b05&k=38367&p=2

Stolen from MadPriest

2007-11-25T15:40:00.000-06:00

Southern Cone or Bust!

2007-11-16T11:27:00.000-06:00

I have a question.

Apparently +Bob Duncan plans to take the Diocese of Pittsburgh (or at least a group of folks claiming to be the Diocese of Pittsburgh) off to join a Province that is TA/NGC (True Anglican, with No Gay Cooties). An invitation is apparently out there from the TA/NGC Province of the Southern Cone of America.

Meanwhile +Jack Iker plans to take the Diocese of Fort Worth (or a clever plastic replica thereof) off to join a Province that is TA/NGC2 (True Anglican, with No Gay Cooties and No Girl Cooties). The invitation from the Southern Cone is apparently also out in their driveway with the engine running.

Here's the thing. It is my understanding that the Southern Cone does not ordain women to the priesthood. (The diaconate, yes, but not the priesthood. Deacons, after all, are in servant ministry, so it's okay for women to have that status. Kind of like Jesus.)

So if +Bob Duncan goes to the Southern Cone, can he take his women priests with him? Or will he have to throw them under the bus?

On the other hand, if +Greg Venables lets +Bob bring his women priests with him to the Southern Cone, +Jack Iker may have to find a different refuge, since he has already said Girl Cooties was not an option for him. Where to go? Nigeria doesn't ordain women, but I think they have actually said that's a possibility for the future. The East African provinces I think already have Girl Cooties (Straight Girl Cooties, but Girl Cooties nonetheless). What's left? Sydney? But Sydney is only a diocese, not a Province. And the Anglican Church of Australia, even though there are some remaining concerns about Gay Cooties, have pretty much made up their mind about being okay with Girl Cooties. And besides, Sydney may very well be NGC2, but they are hardly TA. (+Jack Iker and +Peter Jensen. Now, there's a pair!) (Well, of course +Jack could join up with the Southern Baptists. Pretty much like Sydney, and a lot closer. But pretty strange bedfellows, if you'll pardon the expression.)

So what are +Bob and +Jack (and +John-David and +Keith, and +Greg Venables) to do?

As the King of Siam said, "Is a puzzlement."

Not Even In A Big Brown Truck

2007-11-15T23:21:00.000-06:00

Fr. Jake’s blog is running a post about the request of Bishop Dabney Smith of Southwest Florida to Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire asking that he decline an invitation to speak at a parish in Southwest Florida. The comments are extensive and for the most part measured, thoughtful, and reasonable. The link to this particular post is http://frjakestopstheworld.blogspot.com/2007/11/bp-robinsons-invitation-to-southwest.html

But that’s not what I want to talk about here. About halfway through the discussion one of the commenters called attention to recent articles concerning two excellent, well known journalists in the secular press who are withdrawing after many years from the “religion beat.” They are Stephen Bates of The Guardian (UK) and William Lobdell of the Los Angeles Times. See these articles; they are very good:
http://www.religiousintelligence.co.uk/news/?NewsID=1009
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1630
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lostfaith21jul21,0,3530015,full.story?coll=la-home-center
http://blogs.reuters.com/faithworld/2007/11/15/burnout-on-the-god-beat-second-top-religion-writer-calls-it-quits/
Mr. Lobdell’s article in particular I found very disheartening, though I certainly cannot blame him. Mr. Bates has also shown great perception particularly in covering the Church of England, and is the author of A Church At War, which has received good reviews (I haven’t read it yet but it’s on my list).

This brought to my mind my own experience of some fifteen years as a non-stipendiary priest working at a secular position in a public university (after twenty-some years in parish ministry). Most of my colleagues knew that I was a priest, although we didn’t “talk religion” very much, nor should we have in that context. I was amazed, and not a little troubled, by the number of people — good, kind, honest, loving, concerned people — who have “fallen away” from the churches of their youth. I’m not just talking about their discovery that church leaders are sinners just like everyone else. I am, we all are, everyone knows that; most of us try to be honest about it and to repent. That’s not the problem. Most honest people understand about that. The problem is the authoritarianism, the religiosity, the intellectual dishonesty, the moral and financial corruption, the cruelty, the thirst for power and control (I could go on and on) that they had encountered and experienced. Terry on Jake’s blog commented, “Christianity is losing ground not because 'secular' thought is attacking it and winning. It is losing ground because it has lost its moral authority/leadership.” I think that’s right.

If we care about proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ we need to be a lot less afraid to point to things being said and being done out there — including in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion — that are false to the Gospel. I suggest we identify a “Not Even In A Big Brown Truck Society”* and not hesitate to name names. I am NOT suggesting that we stoop to the level of those who attack everyone who disagrees with them with insult and slander. In all things we must be charitable, though also remembering that love is sometimes tough. But in response to the Robertsons, the Dobsons, yes, the Ratzingers, and yes, the Akinolas and the Duncans and the Ikers, we must say, “No, in God’s name, no!”

It’s very popular, even among “progressive” Episcopalians, to dump on Bishop Spong. To be candid, I think a lot of what I have read of Jack Spong is not very thoughtful and sometimes heretical. But I also think we need to recognize that Bishop Spong’s analysis of various “fundamentalist” and authoritarian expressions of religion claiming to be Christianity has given many people hope that there may after all be a place for them in the Body of Christ. He asks a lot of the right questions even when not all his answers are on target. We need to quit picking on him and instead to look for ways he can share more fully in our genuinely evangelical task of proclaiming the Gospel of God’s love.

“Evangelical” has also become something of a dirty word, and we certainly need to reclaim it from the Big Brown Truck Society folks. (Some of whom, alas, are within our own Communion.) The Gospel of Christ simply cannot afford what passes for “evangelical Christianity” these days. But we also need to recognize with gratitude the truly genuine and authentic evangelicalism among relatively conservative protestants — I am thinking, for example, of Jim Wallis and Randal Balmer.

We as the Church are our own worst enemies — and perhaps even God’s worst enemies. We need to stop it.

*The “Not Even In A Big Brown Truck Society”: Those who would not recognize the Gospel of Christ even if Jesus himself were to drive up to their house in a big brown truck and personally deliver it to their front door.

A Shelter for Homeless Bishops

2007-11-09T20:28:00.000-06:00

According to Thinking Anglicans (http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/), and shared on All The Usual Blogs, four English bishops (yes, the ones you’d suspect) have written in support of Bishop Duncan’s proposal to violate his ordination vows. Further, Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of the Province of the Southern Cone of America (and Bishop of Argentina) has offered to “take in” any dioceses of the Episcopal Church who just can’t stand being Episcopalians any longer. (The Likely Suspects at the moment are Pittsburgh, Fort Worth, and San Joaquin.) This also is well covered in All The Usual Blogs. And yet further, Ruth Gledhill, a well-known journalist in the UK who covers Anglican Stuff with varying degrees of accuracy, writes: “According to well-informed insiders, Dr Rowan Williams, while opposed to separatist solutions to the Anglican crisis, has described the plan of Bishop Venables as a ‘sensible way forward…’”

Well. The Church of England has +Chester, +Chichester, +Exeter, and +Rochester. We have +Pittsburgh, +Fort Worth, and +San Joaquin. I guess that’s only fair. (I’m old enough to remember when Exeter had a real bishop, R. C. Mortimer. Oh well.) But I find it hard to believe that if (or when) +Nazir-Ali decides to take the Diocese of Rochester off to join +Venables, or +Akinola, or +Anis, or +Jensen, +Rowan would think that was a “sensible way forward.” Would he not say, “Um, excuse me? I don’t think so!”?

Tobias Haller, over at In A Godward Direction (http://jintoku.blogspot.com/), shares an interesting note from the Rev. Dr. R. J. Voyle of the Clergy Leadership Institute, which makes the point that if you want to successfully maintain meaningful unity, you have to focus on your core values. +Rowan, please copy: you will not save the unity of the Anglican Communion by betraying the basic values of Anglicanism. One thing I think +Rowan needs to do, as soon as possible (and I think he hinted at this in his e-mail to Bishop John Howe and its subsequent sort-of-clarification, but it needs to be more explicit), is to state that he will not recognize as still part of the Anglican Communion any American diocese that abandons the Episcopal Church for another province, and he will withdraw that bishop’s invitation to Lambeth. In other words, if you are American and want to be an Anglican, you have to do it through the Episcopal Church. Just as if you are English and want to be an Anglican, you have to do it through the Church of England.

If +Rowan doesn’t understand this, and lets this charade continue, the Anglican Communion is dead. As the Gospel puts it in John 11:39, kyrie, édé ozei, tetartaios gar estin.

Bill

Absolutely Must Read

2007-10-19T19:38:00.000-05:00

Father Jake has posted on his website (see the column to the right) a major extract from an essay by the Rev. Canon Dr. Joseph Cassidy, Principal of St. Chad's College at Durham University. He's absolutely right -- an absolutely must read. The full text of the essay is posted on InclusiveChurch, http://inclusive.sqnsolutions.com/Humility-Grace-and-Freedom-by-Canon-Dr-Joe-Cassidy-c78c32a. I commend it enthusiastically.

Bill

Swimming the Tiber

2007-10-17T10:27:00.000-05:00

One of the notable events during the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans last month was the announcement by the Right Rev. Jeffrey L. Steenson, Bishop of the Rio Grande, that he intends to resign from his office and from the ministry of The Episcopal Church and to join the Roman Catholic Church. Accounts have been widely posted on the usual blogs; an interview with Bishop Steenson was published in The Living Church (http://www.livingchurch.org/publishertlc/viewarticle.asp?ID=3825).

I was very sorry to read his announcements, and I do hope he will reconsider. I do not know Bishop Steenson personally, but I believe he has given this matter long and hard thought and prayer, and if he believes that his conscience requires him to take this step, I wish him Godspeed and every blessing. His graciousness is exemplary.

However, I do have a question about his understanding of Anglicanism. He said in his Living Church interview that the meeting of the House of Bishops last March was “a profoundly disturbing experience for me. I was more than a little surprised when such a substantial majority declared the polity of the Episcopal Church to be primarily that of an autonomous and independent local church relating to the wider Anglican Communion by voluntary association. This is not the Anglicanism in which I was formed, inspired by the Oxford Movement and the Catholic Revival in the Church of England … honestly, I did not recognize the church that this House described on that occasion.”

I also was formed, I think slightly before Bishop Steenson, in an Anglicanism inspired by the Oxford Movement and the Catholic Revival, but not quite like what Bishop Steenson describes. When has The Episcopal Church not been autonomous? Granted, we speak better when we talk about “interdependence,” but ultimately we are an independent national Catholic church. If our relationship to the wider Anglican Communion is not by “voluntary association,” then what should it be? An involuntary association dictated by Canterbury, or the Primates (heaven forfend!), or the Lambeth Conference (something which the LC has never claimed to do)? I’m not sure what alternative Bishop Steenson is proposing to “an autonomous and independent local [sic] church relating to the wider Anglican Communion by voluntary association.” It is true that many Catholic Christians believe it is the esse of the Church that there be a central ecclesiastical authority with a clear universal magisterium. That is the position of the Roman Catholic Church. (Oddly enough, that also now seems to be the growing position of many self-identified Anglican “evangelicals.”) I believe it is not the position of authentic Anglican tradition. I believe we have (for the most part) taken very seriously the admonition of Jesus about the use and abuse of authority: “It shall not be so among you.” Does this mean that Anglicans may go wandering off in strange directions? Yes, and we have done so, and we doubtless will again. But we also find our way back, by God’s grace. We are, after all, not saved by our own theological orthodoxy. One problem in a church with Roman-style (or “evangelical”-style) authority is that correcting errors becomes much more difficult. Being an Anglican may often seem like being in a frying pan, but diving into the fire is not the solution.

Bill

A Reflection on the House of Bishops meeting

2007-10-14T12:04:00.000-05:00

There has been a certain amount of dissatisfaction with the House of Bishops’ response to the communiqué from the meeting of the Anglican Primates in Dar es Salaam in February, on both sides of the issue. (Well, there has been some real disappointment expressed on one side, and a great deal of ranting and raving and foaming at the mouth from the other side.)

The HoB’s statement has been posted on various sites on the Web, including EpiScope:
http://episcopalchurch.typepad.com/episcope/2007/09/the-statement.html

One part of the statement that attracted some criticism from “progressive” commentators was the following:

The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "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." (1) The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.

A point of criticism was that the statement notes the reference of GC 2006 Resolution B033 to “non-celibate gay and lesbian persons,” which, although clearly implicit in B033, had not been stated explicitly until the HoB statement. Well, it’s not like there was anyone who didn’t already understand to whom B033 pertained! But what hasn’t received much mention, and what some of us wish the HoB had also explicitly noted, is that B033 pertains not only to non-celibate gay and lesbian persons, but also, presumably, to other “candidates to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion.” Unfortunately, there are many whose manner of life presents a challenge at least to me who have already been consecrated to the episcopate, and I guess it’s too late to do much about that now (although there are a number of purported bishops-elect to whom this might still apply). Here are what I consider some “challenging manners of life”:

notably failing to “seek and serve Christ in all persons, loving your neighbor as yourself” and to “strive for justice and peace among all peoples, and respect the dignity of every human being” (granted, this language is specific to the Baptismal Covenant in the American Book of Common Prayer and as such is not common to all Anglicans, but any Anglican, or any Christian, who cannot vigorously respond “I will, with God’s help” to these vows desperately needs to find another religion);

making hateful (not just critical, but hateful) public statements about other human beings, some of whom are fellow Anglican Christian human beings, and dvocating their prosecution and incarceration even for simply discussing homosexuality;

actively invading another diocese in another Province, by consecrating bishops and claiming jurisdiction over congregations not only without the consent of the bishop of that diocese and the Primate of that Province but in total contempt of that bishop and that Primate, and indeed in contempt of the Archbishop of Canterbury;

arrogant condemnation of another Province for alleged nonconformity with certain provisions of resolutions of the Lambeth Conference and subsequent documents while flagrantly refusing to conform with other provisions of the same resolutions and documents;

unwarranted and unsubstantiated accusations of heresy and apostasy against the Primate and the Bishops of another Province;

violation of clear biblical morality, specifically as set forth in Exodus 20:16 and Deuteronomy 5:20.

I am disappointed that the House of Bishops did not also enumerate these instances of “a manner of life [that] presents a challenge to the wider church.”

Bill

Back to the Blog

2007-10-14T12:02:00.000-05:00

I started this blog a few weeks ago and then got sidetracked! I was following the news and blogs leading up to and during the meeting of the House of Bishops in New Orleans in September, and every time I thought of Wise Comments events would overtake me and they were always obsolete or superseded before I could get them posted. Probably just as well.

Bill

Let's Go Blogging!

2007-08-18T15:47:00.000-05:00

I’ve been lurking on a number of blogs in recent months — primarily related to Episcopal Church/Anglican Communion matters. I’ve refrained from entering the fray of comments (and that’s probably just as well! — mostly because other people have made comments that are wiser than I would have made). But there comes a time when the temptation to join in becomes too great! So here I go. This blog (“The Liturgical Curmudgeon”) will be a miscellaneous assortment of comments, ruminations, reviews, moaning and whining, links to other people’s blogs and articles, etc. I have also set up a separate blog (“Have Stole, Will Travel”) on which I have posted a number of recent sermons. (Some people over the years have asked me for copies of sermons, which I find both flattering and frightening!) See the link on the right.

Comments are most welcome, with the caveat that I intend to moderate them. I have no objection to comments that disagree with me, even vigorously (who knows? You may be right!), but I reserve the right to refuse to post comments that are openly and notoriously offensive or idiotic. One would hate to think that Episcopalians/Anglicans, or any Christians, would post such comments, but, as we all know, alas…

Thank you for your charity and forbearance as I enter the Anglican Blogosphere!

Bill Moorhead

Some Reviews

2007-08-18T14:57:00.000-05:00

I have recently read or encountered a number of books or interviews that I found interesting and valuable. Some of these are already well known. If you haven’t already seen them, I commend them to your attention.

Take This Bread: A Radical Conversion, by Sara Miles. A powerful and deeply moving spiritual memoir. Ms. Miles sometimes colors a bit outside the lines, but then, so did Jesus. I recommend it to everyone, and would particularly suggest it to recent converts to Christianity or to the Episcopal Church, and to anyone who has been away for a while and is considering whether to come back.

The Heart of Christianity: Rediscovering a Life of Faith, by Marcus J. Borg. Sub-subtitled “How We Can Be Passionate Believers Today.” Professor Borg has attracted a lot of criticism, even scorn, especially from more conservative quarters, because of his association with the Jesus Seminar. It’s true that there are some things he says about which I would like to sit down with him with a pitcher or two of beer (N/A; I’m on medications!) But he needs to be taken much more seriously than some are willing to do. I believe a number of parishes (including my own) have book study groups who are reading this book, and I highly recommend that. Another book for recent converts or returners who want a clearer exposition of what Christian Gospel is all about, especially if they are troubled by the “Christian religion” as preached by some self-proclaimed “evangelicals.” It’s worth remembering that Borg and Tom Wright are good friends even though they disagree about a number of things (see their The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions).

In Search of Paul: How Jesus’ Apostle Opposed Rome’s Empire with God’s Kingdom, by John Dominic Crossan and Jonathan L. Reed. And while we’re talking about authors who get a lot of scorn from more conservative folks…! I am one of those who would take issue with a lot of the things Crossan says (his early book The Cross That Spoke: The Origin of the Passion Narrative is to my mind quite silly), but this book on Paul focuses primarily on the social history of the Roman Empire in the first century and is really very interesting, if occasionally a bit tedious. This opens some aspects of the first generation of Christianity of which many of us were not aware.

A few days ago I ran across an interview with Dr. John Polkinghorne, the (Anglican) priest/physicist at Cambridge, who in my judgment is one of our most important theologians, though probably under-read. (Generally easier to read than +Rowan!) The transcript and video of this interview with Robert Wright of meaningoflife.tv, posted via Slate.com, can be found at:
http://meaningoflife.tv/video.php?speaker=polkinghorne&topic=complete
There are also some other interesting interviews in this series.

See you anon.

Bill Moorhead

Response to the Draft Anglican Covenant

2007-08-18T14:50:00.000-05:00

I studied the Draft Anglican Covenant for several weeks, and submitted this response to the General Secretary of the Episcopal Church Center as we all were invited to do, earlier this year. I began by calling attention to some responses of others, with which I generally agree, which I found helpful, and which have been widely read.

Mr. Lionel Deimel (St. Paul’s, Lebanon, Pennsylvania);

The Rev. Marshall Scott (Diocese of West Missouri; posted on his blog Episcopal Chaplain at the Bedside);

The Deputies from the Diocese of New York to the 2006 General Convention (posted by the Rev. Tobias Haller BSG, a member of the Deputation, on his blog In A Godward Direction)

I would also like to call attention to a subsequent response by my friend and colleague the Rev. Canon Ronald Osborne regarding the Instruments of Unity, which is posted on A Guy In The Pew, the blog of Chuck Blanchard of Phoenix, Arizona: http://aguyinthepew.blogspot.com/2007/08/rev-canon-ronald-osborne-on-instruments.html

My own comments about the Covenant follow:

*******************

(1) Do you think an Anglican Covenant is necessary and/or will help to strengthen the interdependent life of the Anglican Communion? Why or why not?
I do not think an “Anglican Covenant” is necessary. Mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Anglican Communion is best strengthened, and has been strengthened in the past, by sharing in ministry by provinces, dioceses, and parishes; through companion diocese relationships; through conferences like TEAM (Toward Effective Anglican Mission) and TEAC (Theological Education for the Anglican Communion), etc. Anglicans need to know each other better through sharing worship and prayer, service and mission, personal communication and reflection. It is not clear to me what gain there would be by composing a document that I fear would simply create potential and actual seeds of dissension.

“An Introduction to a Draft Text for an Anglican Covenant”
(2) How closely does this view of communion accord with your understanding of the development and vocation of the Anglican Communion?
I am not really very clear what view of communion this Introduction is putting forth. I wholeheartedly believe that the Anglican Communion is a gift to us from God, but I am not sure what the Introduction means by our “special charism and identity.” I believe that as Anglicans we do have a special charism and identity, but this Introduction does not define these. On the contrary, my understanding includes an openness to the Spirit of truth, a willingness to listen to one another, and a reluctance toward ecclesiastical authoritarianism that I am not sure I detect in this draft covenant.

“An Anglican Covenant Draft”
1. Preamble
(3) Is this a sufficient rationale for entering into a Covenant? Why or why not?
This Preamble is unexceptional enough, I suppose, but I don’t see it as a sufficient rationale for imposing (let’s be candid) a covenant. We are certainly all called to grow up together to the full stature of Christ, but I’m not sure what is meant by “a worldwide Communion” and whether that might include an unnecessary agenda.

2. The Life we Share
(4) Do these six affirmations adequately describe The Episcopal Church’s understanding of “common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith”? Why or why not?
I am inclined to think that these affirmations are both deficient and excessive. I think the description of our understanding of our common catholicity, apostolicity, and confession of faith are most appropriately expressed by the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral 1886/1888, including the specific reference to the Historic Episcopate. I don’t think anything further is required. “Participation in the apostolic mission of the whole people of God” — well, yes, certainly, but what exactly is that supposed to mean?

(5) The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion and the 1662 Book of Common Prayer (of the Church of England) are not currently authoritative documents for The Episcopal Church. Do you think they should be? Why or why not?
In a word, No. I actually rather like the Articles of Religion, mostly, but even in revised form we declined to make them “authoritative” in 1801. We might also note that the first two Anglican churches beyond the Church of England, namely, the Scottish Episcopal Church and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, did not authorize the 1662 Book of Common Prayer. The 1662 Book is certainly appropriate to include among our historical documents, as is also the 1549 Book, along with numerous other subsequent Anglican Books including the English Proposed Book of 1928 which the Convocations and the Church Assembly approved but Parliament rejected. Regarding Paragraph (5) of this section: Let’s not go there.

3. Our Commitment to Confession of Faith
(6) Is each of these commitments clear and understandable with respect to what is being asked of the member churches and are they consistent with statements and actions made by the Episcopal Church in the General Convention? Why or why not?
What’s not to like? What’s not to commit to? Well, actually, what is meant by “biblically derived moral values” (1) and how and by whom are they determined? This is both vague and naïve. There are major portions of the Bible that are not places I would recommend for deriving moral values. We would like to assume that the communion of member Churches are receiving and developing a Godly vision of humanity (well, most of us probably do), but there have certainly been times in the past when we (including ourselves) have had a very defective vision. I think the solemn obligation to sustain Eucharistic communion (2) is essential and it would certainly be good if all the Primates would do it. Biblical texts certainly must be handled faithfully etc. (3), but “primarily through the teaching and initiative of bishops and synods”? Who wrote this — Ratzinger? I think each Church should commit itself to seeking to be faithful to God, and I think we are mostly doing that; this section is superfluous and potentially mischievous.

4. The Life we Share with Others
(7) Is the mission vision offered here helpful in advancing a common life of the Anglican Communion and does this need to be a part of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?
I think this section is really pretty good. I’m not sure we need to make a Covenant out of it, but it’s a good statement.

5. Our Unity and Common Life
(8) Does this section adequately describe your understanding of the history and respective roles of the “Four Instruments of Communion”? Why or why not?
Well, it’s nice to see the Historic Episcopate finally make an appearance — better late than never! For most of the history of the Anglican Communion, two instruments of Communion (the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Lambeth Conference) were entirely sufficient. In more recent decades, the Anglican Consultative Council has I think made a major contribution to the life and mission of the Communion. The ACC actually has a constitutional structure and is appropriately an additional Instrument of Communion. In this section, however, the ACC seems to be reduced to a co-ordination role, which I think is a serious error. Even more serious is the attempt to raise the Primates’ Meeting to Curial status. The Primates are appropriate members (perhaps even an “upper house”) of the Anglican Consultative Council, and maybe could meet additionally for mutual support, counsel, and discussion, much as the Houses of Bishops in the TEC and some other provinces do, but of course with no independent legislative authority. But “monitors global developments and works in full collaboration in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications”? I don’t think so.

6. Unity of the Communion
(9) Do you think there needs to be an executive or judicial body for resolving disagreements or disputes in the Anglican Communion? If so, do you think it should be the Primates Meeting as recommended by the Draft Covenant? Explain.
No. The New York GC Deputation is right on target with their response to this point. And they are still right on target when they say that giving executive or judicial authority to the Primates is the worst possible solution. I’m sure that in the future, as in the past, Churches in the Anglican Communion will have disagreements or disputes about various matters. We will get over them.

(10) What does the phrase “a common mind about matters of essential concern. . .” mean to you?
I don’t know what it means to me; or, rather, I can make it mean a variety of different things to me. Who gets to decide what is a matter of “essential concern”? How much of a “common mind” is necessary? I think this item (3) is dangerous. It also seems to me to conflict with item (2), which is pretty good. In fact, if we all had followed the counsel of item (2) in recent years, we wouldn’t have this Covenant proposal before us at all. Items (4), (5), and (6) are unacceptable; they have to do with power, not with the Gospel of Christ.

7. Our Declaration
(11) Can you affirm the “fundamental shape” of the Draft Covenant? Why or why not?
I don’t think so. Although there are some good points in the Draft Covenant, there are also some points that are seriously off target, and at the end of the day it is not clear that the benefits outweigh the potential costs, or that purged of its authoritarianism and prelacy such a covenant would really be worth the bother.

(12) What do you think are the consequences of signing such a Covenant as proposed in the Draft?
I think there is a real possibility that signing such a Covenant, certainly in anything like its present form, would destroy the Anglican Communion. Well, the Communion would continue, but we might have to call it something else, depending on which direction +Rowan jumped. In any case, not a good outcome.

Concluding Questions:
(13) Having read the Draft Covenant as a whole do you agree with the CDG’s assertion that “nothing which is commended in the draft text of the Covenant can be said to be ‘new’”? Why or why not?
I certainly do not agree. The draft text of the Covenant is full of all sorts of innovations, of which the attempt to seize power on behalf of the Primates is the most grievous.

(14) In general, what is your response to the Draft Covenant taken as a whole? What is helpful in the draft? What is not-helpful? What is missing? Additional comments?
In general, my response is that as a whole the Draft Covenant is pointless at best and faithless at worst. For all that the Covenant talks about being Anglican, it does not seem to understand Anglicanism very well. It is not that we do not value truth and orthodoxy, but that we discovered some time back that truth cannot be compelled (or even always discerned) by power, and the ultimate answer to bad theology is good theology — not heresy trials or ecclesiastical discipline.

The Rev. William S. J. Moorhead
Iowa City, Iowa