Yet More on the Anglican Covenant

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

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?

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....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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)

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)

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

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

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

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

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)

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.