Sour Wine: No Money, No Prayer.

The New Wineskins Missionary Network, was in an earlier incarnation called The Episcopal Church Missionary Community (ECMC). You can read its history HERE. ECMC began as an independent voice for mission that both challenged and worked with the Episcopal Church and its missionary efforts. It's first leaders, Walter and Louise Hannum, provided a vision of education for missionaries, engagement in mission, and support of missionaries worldwide that gave rise to several important efforts in the church: (i) ECMC began a church wide global mission conference that has evolved into the New Wineskins for Global Mission Conference; (ii) it provide the context for a conference on reaching unreached peoples that in turn gave energy to the development of Anglican Frontier Missions and supported other evangelical mission agencies; (iii) it developed a prayer list for missionaries and mission societies and agencies.

They have thrown their lot with the American Anglican Council and the Anglican Communion Network and have adopted the tag line of the Common Cause Partnership. They say, "New Wineskins has open doors to work for a united, Biblical, and missionary Anglicanism in North America and even worldwide!" (tag line in red).

Over the years they have ceased praying for those at the Episcopal Church Center whose charge it is to send missionaries or for Episcopal Church appointed missionaries. They are no longer part of the Episcopal Partnership for Global Mission, an umbrella organization of missionary agencies of the Episcopal Church.

Racked as I am with revisionist leanings and a member of the unclean Episcopal Church, I still get letters from New Wineskins asking for donations. I received their Easter letter today (May 9^th).

The letter informed me that "Sharon (the Director) was recently honored with invitations to attend the Global Anglican Future Conference in Jerusalem in June and the South East Asia Mission Roundtable Conference in Bangkok in October." We may remember that GAFCON is by invitation only from a bishop related to its organization. New Wineskins has maintained a level of purity sufficient to be "honored" by an invitation.

While they are hurting for money, they believe that "God will continue to provide, and we are building relationships with churches across the country and forming new partnerships for our future." Good.

They are forming new partnerships. I presume this means among other things that they will migrate from the Anglican Communion Network to the Common Cause Partnership as the venue for their work as the ACN itself fragments and its purist residue forms this new "united, biblical and missionary Anglicanism in North America."

But here is the declaration that stood out: "New Wineskins will not incur debt. Without increased financial support we will be unable to continue to offer prayer support to missionaries around the world, Mission Awareness Seminars in parishes, and the triennial New Wineskins for Global Mission conferences." The Seminars and Conferences require funding, no question. But I wonder who offering prayer support to missionaries requires much in the way of funding? Perhaps it is to keep the list up to date and send it out.

Well, I could help with that. No, wait…The list is kept up to date by, among other things, keeping it pure and undefiled by people like me, you know, members of the Episcopal Church.

I have always had a love/hate relationship with ECMC. The Hannums are wonderful people and they challenged me often to be better at mission work, but I always felt held in prayer by their list and looked eagerly for the names of new appointed missionaries and the names of colleagues at the Church Center involved in mission sending and support. Those names are not there now.

That Wineskin is getting old; the supple material that could contain us all is more rigid. I am afraid their Easter Letter was not for me.

O well.

 

All Quiet on the Anglican Front

In the run up to Pentecost there is a sort of quiet pause in Anglican blog land.

Watchdogs are out, data is being gathered by Fr. Jake on the whereabouts of such usurpers as Presiding Bishop Venables and the deposed Bishop of Recife, now just fine in the Southern Cone. Baby Blue is on Kenneth Kearon's case, wondering just why he is in the Philippines. (Is this a copy-cat caper?) She is going on about the Philippine Independent Church and the Episcopal Church of the Philippines at some length looking for sneaky doings. There are all sorts of legal activities regarding property taking place, most of them without great splash interest or moxie. Mostly muttering is all there is. To be fair there is much more interesting stuff going on elsewhere.

Mostly people in Anglican Land seem to be waiting for a shoe to drop. (Is it the other shoe or just a shoe?) Questions are left dangling.

Whatever happened to the letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to the bishops, now predicted some weeks ago by Anglican blog notables?

Is GAFCON the gaffe it seems to be, resulting finally in a meeting of the already convinced and convicted set on the pilgrims way to chart a new Anglicanism – one without the Archbishop of Canterbury, a Lambeth filled with objectionable people, and pure as the driven snow?

Who is paying for GAFCON anyway?

How is registration going at Lambeth? I have hear that over 700 bishops now have signed on.

Bishop Robinson can't sign on, because not invited. He will be there however, the shadow of the shame of his dis-invitation hanging like a pall over the gathering.

Bishop Cavalcanti was not invited to Lambeth either, being deposed. Want to bet he will be there as well, hanging around the hospitality suite of the Common Cause Partnership?

The deposed bishop of Harare was not invited, being deposed, but he will not be there, the stink from his activities in Zimbabwe being so great that a visa will not be granted. Going to church in Harare can be rather exciting, since the deposed Bishop has used force to block out regular paid up Zimbabwe Anglicans from worship. Fighting has ensued. Who said going to church wasn't exciting? But there will be no hospitality for the deposed bishop of Harare.

It turns out that the bishops of Pittsburgh will attend Lambeth, trying to make the case for the Common Cause Partners and their takeover scheme. They of course were invited, but Bishop Duncan had not previously indicated that he would suffer actually going. He will bear the burden it now appears, and will go,"Both bishops believe it is important that the diocese be represented throughout the Lambeth Conference, if for no other reason than to provide an alternative perspective on the situation in The Episcopal Church. 'Those who accuse us of abandoning the Anglican Communion will certainly be present and vocal. It is important for us to be able to respond directly to their claims about the situation in The Episcopal Church and our place in the Communion.'"

Sitting on the edge of deposition for abandonment of the communion of this Church (meaning the Episcopal Church) the Moderator of the Common Cause Partnership – whose clear purpose is to work for a "biblical and missionary and united Anglicanism" in North America – really has to make an appearance, if only to show he hasn't left yet.

Then there is the dither about the imminent demise of the Church of England. Hand wringing and great laments, but no good numbers.

The Anglican Covenant idea is mired in deep misery, being now processed to the point where it is hard to know just what is going on, even with flowcharts and more flowcharts. Somewhere, over the rainbow, there may be an Anglican Covenant, but this side of the rainbow, there is just rain. Something like the St. Andrew's Draft, MINUS the appendix "Framework, Procedures for the Resolution of Covenant Disagreements" just might get through, but the flowcharts are enough to put one off the canonical feed bag for a while.

Lambeth has given just a bit of its time to discussion of the Covenant and Lambeth is touted as not being legislative in character, with few plenary meetings. So we are waiting for someone to tell us just how the information from discussions at Lambeth will be expressed in further revision of the Covenant. My wager is that the "thoughts" of the bishops at Lambeth will transmogrify into the stones for the new structure. After all, if the thoughts of the bishops at Lambeth were enough to turn its resolutions into binding "mind of the communion" statements, what is to prevent it happening in a looser, more gentle, Lambeth?

And, as an aside, I wonder just why Anglican Bishops in one of their Plenary meetings need to hear a Roman Catholic Cardinal, who doesn't believe we are a real church with real priests and bishops anyway, tell Anglicans that we have to choose between Catholic and Protestant tendencies and simply get over the compromise at the core of our Anglican experience. The Via Media may seem a bridge with a barrier and border guards, but Anglicans have gotten to know the guards and have invited them to tea and generally lowered the level of belligerency by claiming that both are our heritage. I would submit that the unsightly vision of a church holding in tension very different views of the church may bother Rome, but Rome might do well to look to itself a bit.

Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Presiding Bishop and other Episcopal officers have seen fit to be concerned for the world in ways that point to something else beside the Anglican snits. It is quite refreshing to remember that most of the time we are not thinking of ourselves but of others.

And of course Episcopalians and Anglicans the world over will be focused on Pentecost this Sunday, a feast celebrating the noisy chamber rattling banging about of the Spirit in the Churches. The Spirit is not, thank God, confined to our miserable doctrines, pronouncements and other efforts to box and control. Stand by to be surprised.

There may be no surprise in the waiting, but in the living there are more wonders than we can comprehend.

And the shoes will fall where they may. Then perhaps we can run barefoot in the grass and laugh until the new day.

Time to Up the Prayer, Giving, Demanding.

The devastation of the cyclone in Burma / Myanmar is made worse each day that outside relief is hampered by a government  that is itself devastated by its isolation from a world of people willing to come to the aid of the suffering. Pray for the people and leadership of Myanmar and the Church in Burma, and give for relief of the suffering. We can give in a wide variety of ways, of course. Episcopalians and anyone else can give through Episcopal Relief and Development. See the ENS article HERE.  There are those who want to give through the Anglican Relief and Development Fund, believing somehow that ERD is part of something in which they or their partners will not participate.  See the ARDF article HERE. I find the need for ARDF sad, but in the context of the great need that is out there look at the proposals and prospects for service and get the funds to the Church in Burma and to relief agencies working there by any means possible.

Meanwhile, we ought to join the Presiding Bishop, the Archbishops of Canterbury, York and Cape Town, in calling for a resolution of the political and humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe. Read the ENS article HERE.  Readers may recall the passion of the Archbishop of York concerning the rogue presidency of Mugabe and his protest on English TV. See it HERE.

We need to take the Presiding Bishop's call for action and prayer seriously.

It is time to hold the Government of Zimbabwe accountable and the Military Government in Myanmar to the test of service to the people.  But we must also do more: we must pray and give and work for the restoration of civil society and peace and for healing and relief.

Now. Here are some links for relief, from the Anglican Communion News Service:

Myanmar Cyclone – Emergency Appeals

Myanmar was struck by Cyclone Nargis over the weekend and it has been reported that approximately 22,500 people are dead, with 40-50,000 missing without food, water and shelter. The extent of damage is still being assessed and communications in the area is still difficult.  (Note: This number has been raised significantly in the past day...the number is not at as many as 100,000 dead.)

Below are some of the Christian Relief Agencies responding to help the people of Myanmar.

USA: Episcopal Relief and Development (ERD): 
http://www.er-d.org/newsroom_96874_ENG_HTM.htm

Canada: The Primate’s World Relief and Development Fund
http://www.pwrdf.org/stories/all-stories/stories/?tx_ttnews[year]=2008&tx_ttnews[month]=05&tx_ttnews[day]=06&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=416&tx_ttnews[backPid]=1&cHash=9e1216ce40

Church World Services (CWS) and Anglican Missions (Anglican Missions Board of the Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia) Emergency Appeal:
http://www.churchworldservice.org/Emergencies/international/2008/myanmarcyclone.html

UK: Christian Aid: 
http://www.christian-aid.org.uk/emergencies/current/burma_cyclone/index.aspx

Is Attendance at Lambeth a matter of Representative Function?

The Windsor Report paragraphs 134 and 144 included this phrase: "Pending such expression of regret, we recommend that such bishops be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion."

The Windsor Report "process" includes the request that there be an expression of regret by Anglican Church of Canada and Episcopal Church Bishops for allowing for, supporting, or otherwise permitting the blessing of same sex unions, and the Episcopal Church for ordaining a bishop who is gay and in relationship. The assumption is that that regret would be accompanied by pledges to cease and desist. It also asked Bishops and Provinces intervening in the US and Canada to cease and desist and express regret. It did not say that those who continued to intervene consider withdrawing. 

There has been response from both churches to these request, and great debate as to whether or not these two provinces have complied. There has been no response from the churches intervening, except to say that they felt compelled to do so. There has been no regret, rather there has been massive, invasive, and recruiting usurpation. Fr. Jake is on the case here concerning Presiding Bishop Venables. Other gang members of the Southern Cone episcopate, notably Bishop Lyons and Bishop Cavalcanti, are out there wondering around and we will one day have to deal with them as well. The Windsor Report was deficient in not including a recommendation of disengagement for interventionists and its already glaring deficiencies are compounded by its clear bias.

In the case of blessings and ordinations there was a recommendation –that bishops "be invited to consider in all conscience whether they should withdraw themselves from representative functions in the Anglican Communion."

Just what are those "representative functions"? Clearly membership on committees, commissions, etc of Anglican Communion bodies, including the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and Anglican Consultative Council (ACC). Certainly the ACC itself. But what about the Primates Meeting? And What about the Lambeth Conference?

The Primates Meeting is not a "representative function" in that the Primates are invited in their person as primates, not as representatives of their churches. They are of course on some level embodiments of their provinces, but they are hardly representatives. Moreover, the Primates meetings have been touted as an opportunity for prayer, reflection and sharing, all highly personal rather than representative activities.

The Lambeth Conference, similarly, is such a gathering. All active Bishops are invited not because they represent Dioceses, but because they are bishops. Of course most do speak for dioceses and they are encouraged to "bring your diocese to Lambeth." But they are there for fellowship, refreshment, prayer and study. They are not there to make decisions on behalf of their dioceses.

So here is the question: If the Windsor invitation to consider withdrawing from representative functions is meant to apply to Lambeth, does this fly in the face of the Archbishop of Canterbury's (and perhaps our) understanding of the character of the Lambeth Conference? And, if that invitation does not apply to Lambeth, why does the Archbishop believe bishops must come willing to abide by the "Windsor Process" and must come willing to enter the process of developing an Anglican Covenant? The first – the process – includes expression of regret and cease and desist orders, the second – the covenant process – involves agreement with the end of the Covenant process, namely an actual document.

In addition, having already invited most, but not all, bishops to come it is the height of rudeness to send out a second missive suggesting that the invitees apply some sort of litmus test to themselves to see if they are really, really, really worthy of inclusion in the gathering. Either the invitation is real or it is not. If it is real, then the ABC has to take the lumps as host and put up with the boorish, the contentious, and the heterodox.

That's the way it is if you try to throw a party for the bishops of an 70 million member fellowship.

And, just so the ABC understands: My sense is the Bishop of Delaware (or any other Diocese) does not represent the Diocese when he goes to Lambeth. The Diocese sets aside monies for his attendance because he is a bishop, our bishop. We are proud of him and glad to encourage his being there. But if you want representatives from the Diocese of Delaware, ask. We might send the bishop as our representative. He's pretty good at it, by the way. But we could send someone else. Delaware is small, but we are not so hierarchical as to believe that our representative needs to be our bishop.

Save the representative stuff for the Anglican Consultative Council and the Commissions, etc. Let Lambeth be a meeting of bishops, period. In which case, Windsor does not apply.

About the Mail…

Baby Blue, who must have a reminder function on her calendar, reminds us that we have not heard another thing about the supposed letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury to all or some of the bishops that would set out the basis on which they ought to decide to come or not to Lambeth. BB is still waiting.

Interestingly, Ruth Gledhill seems to think that maybe the Archbishop's recent video to the bishops about Lambeth IS the letter…in new form. She writes, "The Archbishop of Canterbury has put that Lambeth letter' that Bishop Wright talked about up as a video on YouTube!"

So Ruth seems to believe the video is the letter. If it is, it is not as drastic a missive as previously supposed. And Bishop Wright and George Conger are wrong.

If it is not, we are with Baby Blue still waiting, and Ruth Gledhill is wrong.

But mostly, as time goes by it seems less and less interesting. Waiting becomes less electric.

Filled with Anticipation at 90 Years

Anne Harris, mother of three, including me, is ninety years old today. Each day is a blessing.

She has always been an active participant in the sometimes wonderful, sometimes trying, always surprising stages of life. In recent years she has been an acute observer of old age. Several of her computer generated pictures and books on aging have been widely shared through her books which have been sold through the internet. You can view some of these at her site HERE, and in particular you might look at her most often asked for book, titled Experiencing Old Age, HERE.

Anne recently has gotten a better picture of what she faces as death becomes a nearer friend. She writes frankly about the possible lines of development as her body breaks down. She is not filled with dread of death but with anticipation an hope.

Being an artist and, how shall we say, Anne, she expressed her anticipation in a recent picture she drew of herself on the computer. Being partially bald, Anne in this drawing is nude except for a silk cap on her head. She, like Venus in Botticelli's Birth of Venus, is modest even in her nakedness, although in old age there is less to be modest about. But the hand that Venus has partially covering her breasts is, in Anne's self pose, lifted high to catch a star in the heavens. Lacking Venus' hair, a star already caught provides modesty below. Venus is on a shell and is being born into the world. Anne is rising from the earth, and being borne to the heavens. Behind and below is North America (with some liberties). Above is the blackness of space and stars.

I am so proud of my mother that I can hardly stand it!

In the midst of all the frump in Anglican blog land there have been people on opposite shores who this week end have found life to celebrate in large and small happenings, life greater than the foibled life of Anglican Land .

Fr. Jake takes joy in the life of a parish on a "regular" Sunday. Susan Russell got honored but spent more time delighting in others. Over at Stand Firm, Sarah Hay found the story of the death of a young man and its effect on parents worth the pondering. We all need reminders that in the midst of the seemingly momentous issues there are is the living of our lives, and grace comes mostly from the living, not from the issues.

Of course after the reflections it is back to work. After all, if I don't write something on the current situation in Anglican Land, my mother won't read my blog. But wait...if that happens maybe she will have more time for greater revelations from a life filled with anticipation. It is almost a convincing argument for... oh, never mind.

Happy Birthday, Anne.

Two Essays in Anglican Blogland

I count myself fortunate to have friends from various banks of the great divide and look forward to what they write. Some write often, as I do... to often by some accounts. Others less frequently. I look forward particularly to what these less frequent blogger friends have to say.

Simon Mein, who writes on his blog SimonSurmises very infrequently, has pulled off another fascinating feast for thought.  Dan and I and many others may wander off into grump-land but Simon has landed on the other shore. He writes as an elder who discovers again and again with refreshing insistence that radical commentary is a lively and ongoing tradition in Anglican though. His essay, Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus,  is well worth the read. The introduction is a reminder that we still have preacher/teachers that believe that a twenty-five minute sermon is woefully short.  I have heard Simon preach and I must say he pulls it off. 

Simon introduces the claim that "outside the Church there is no salvation" and puts that in a context that sets the tone for the sermon that follows.  The whole thing is well worth the read.

Then there is Dan Martins, over at Confessions of a Carioca.  He published Friday an entry titled, Diachronic Koinonia," that I recommend for two reasons: (i) it is very well written and (ii) it fulfills one of the cardinal rules of curmudgeon - hood, namely the comment that things are going to hell in a hand basket. (See, I can use the word 'hell' in a reasonably preacher like fashion.)  His version of the curmudgeon gripe in this essay is this: "This is the practice of diachronic koinonia. Until recent years, one could make a plausible case that such practice was in the DNA of the Episcopal Church. Lately, not so much. We are, in fact, rapidly mutating." 

What I like about the essay is that Dan rightly points out a continuing issue for all of us - that we need to remember that we are part of a koinonia, fellowship, that includes past and future as well as present members. 

I found Dan's examples of "mutating" unconvincing, although I believe there is plenty of mutating going on across the spectrum.  His examples were these: "Bonnie Anderson's assertions (in her message to the House of Deputies this past week) that there is a theology behind TEC's polity, and that such polity is the vehicle for Divine revelation are among the signs of the ongoing mutation. The Presiding Bishop's Pentecost message that speaks not of the Holy Spirit, but simply of "Holy Spirit" is another. " 

Bonnie Anderson, the President of the House of Deputies, said this, which is as close to her saying there is a theology behind TEC's polity etc as I can find in her letter: "The input of the clergy and laity of the Episcopal Church is especially important as the Anglican Communion considers the development of a covenant. In the Episcopal Church the belief that God speaks uniquely through bishops, laity, priests and deacons, enables our participatory structure and allows a fullness of revelation and insight that must not be lost in this important time of discernment. The joint work of the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops is the institutional expression of this belief."  

It is unclear to me just how this is a mutation of what we have heretofore believed. It is not a new idea that the people of the Church - all "orders" - have a unique role as a vehicle for revelation and insight as God speaks in and through them.  And it is not a new idea that "the joint work of the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops is the institutional expression of this belief."  Granted, it is the institutional expression for this church, and granted there are other communities of Christians not part of the Episcopal Church. But we believe that we are informed not solely by one or the other "order" within the body, but by the whole body.  I fail to see strange or new things mutating here.

The Presiding Bishop did indeed use the phrase, "Holy Spirit" without the article three times, and closed with a reference to "the Spirit."  Dan may be on to something here. Perhaps the Presiding Bishop has been listening to Pentecostals who understand Holy Spirit to be sometimes "the" Holy Spirit, an outside agency, an sometimes speak of be a "Holy Spirit people" with that same spirit residing in us and exciting us and making us new. But I don't find her use of "Holy Spirit" in any way a denial of the objectivity of "The Holy Spirit." Rather I find it an interesting way of suggesting that we can be filled with Holy Spirit and set on fire for the Gospel of Salvation.  This is an interesting use of language here to suggest a way of internalizing the Holy Spirit. It is not, I would suggest, a "mutating" of the faith received.

Dan Martins article is to be recommended not because of the grump at the end, but because of the reminder at the beginning, a reminder written with clarity and grace.

I am grateful to both Dan and Simon. They give a better tone to writings in Anglican Blog-Land than we often find, and what they say is provoking.

Bishop Iker - the letter was not to you.

The Presiding Bishop wrote Presiding Bishop (aka Archbishop) Venables of the Southern Cone a letter regarding his planned visit to Fort Worth for "the expressed purpose of describing removal to the Province of the Southern Cone." You can read it HERE. There is no indication that Bishop Iker was copied, although the press release made it clear that the Archbishop of Canterbury was.
The Presiding Bishop's letter was released on April 29th. On April 30th, Bishop Iker responded to the Presiding Bishop as follows:

Dear Katharine,

I am shocked and saddened by the rude letter you released yesterday to Archbishop Greg Venables, concerning his visit this weekend to the Diocese of Fort Worth. Far from being "an unwarranted interference," he is coming at my request as an honored visitor and guest speaker.

You should know that under the canons this does not require either your approval or your support. You have no say in this matter. A diocesan bishop is free to invite other bishops to visit and speak in his diocese.

There are no efforts at reconciliation proceeding within this Province, which is one reason why faithful people continue to leave TEC in droves. Your attitude and actions simply reinforce alienation and bring further discord.

Once again, you are the one meddling in the internal affairs of this diocese, and I ask you to stop your unwelcome intrusions.

Faithfully in Christ,

The Rt. Rev. Jack Leo Iker
Bishop of Fort Worth

cc: The Archbishop of Canterbury

The discerning eye will note that Bishop Iker seems to think the first letter was addressed to him, in spite of his recognizing that it was addressed to Bishop Venables. By the beginning of the second paragraph, the story is about Bishop Iker's right to invite Presiding Bishop Venables.

No one disputes his right to do so. The letter was not about Bishop Iker's invitation, it was about Presiding Bishop Venable's acceptance.

Bishop Iker: The letter was not to you.

Who the Hell Wrote the Undisclosed Memo?

Who the hell wrote the undisclosed memo concerning the possible bases for bringing the Presiding Bishop up on trial for violating the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal church? The Living Church posted the article by George Conger, titled, "Memo: Presiding Bishop Subverting the Constitution and Canons" in which an anonymous lawyer or lawyers opined on the matter of the Presiding Bishop's actions in reference to Bishops Schofield, Cox and Duncan. No indication was made as to the authorship of the memo, who commissioned the effort, or who distributed it. No reference was given to a place where the original source could be viewed.

George Conger, author of the Living Church article, also wrote another version for the Church of England newspaper. In it he writes,

"There is a prima facie case for bringing the US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to trial before a church tribunal for abuse of office, a legal memorandum commissioned by a group of concerned American bishops and church leaders has found. But whether the bishops have the political will to act is unclear, the paper concluded.

Prepared by an international lawyer in response to a request for an independent opinion as to the legality of Bishop Schori’s actions, and their implications for the polity of the Episcopal Church, the April 21 memorandum concludes the Presiding Bishop deliberately and with full knowledge and forethought “subverted” the “fundamental polity” of the Episcopal Church in her takeover of the Diocese of San Joaquin."

Now the lawyer author of the memorandum is identified as "an international lawyer" and the paper commissioned by "a group of concerned American bishops." Bishop John Howe of Central Florida is quoted as having seen the brief (memorandum) but that he does not know who is behind it. I suppose that means the memorandum came to him without names attached.

So we have a memorandum which is not offered for public scrutiny, authored by an unknown "international lawyer" for a group o f concerned bishops, whose concern does not extend to having us know who they are, circulated to bishops and certain well placed correspondents, and not otherwise made public by any bishop in the course of nine days. We might well ask, "What the hell is going on here?"

As to the particulars reported by The Living Church and the Church of England Newspaper, they are to some extent countered by the letter of the Presiding Bishop to the House of Bishops dated April 30th. Her letter did not remark directly on any aspect of the April 21st Memo, and The Church of England article, posted May 1st, observes, "Spokesmen for the Presiding Bishop and the Archbishop of Canterbury declined comment, telling The Church of England Newspaper they had not seen the document."

If the comment that they had not seen the document was made in the past few days, it would appear that the Presiding Bishop's letter was not in response to the April 21st memo. Perhaps the questions from a CEN or TLC reporter provoked a general response. It seems the two documents do not form a question and answer pair.

Much of the April 21st Memo, as reported, seems filled with a different "read" of the canons than what is presented in the Presiding Bishop's letter. One significant difference, however, is that the April 21st Memo impugns the political and ecclesiastical will of the Title IV Review Committee, the Bishops and the whole of the Episcopal Church. The authors "were not optimistic the current legal and political environment within the church would see justice done." That is, the authors were not confident that the Presiding Bishop would be held accountable and brought to trial, given their arguments that "prima facie" there was grounds for such a trial.

Perhaps their lack of confidence is actually in their arguments, since they seem unwilling to let the world see the, know who they are and who commissioned them to write.

We shall see.

Meanwhile the question remains, "Who the hell wrote the Undisclosed Memo?"

Revisiting the Realignment Timeline, just for a moment.

Some minion in the Anglican Communion Network office is either too clever by half or a dolt. The headline of the most recent posting on the "News" section of the ACN pages is this, "Realignment Complete, San Joaquin Refocuses on Mission and Ministry." Of course this is not true.

Realignment will be complete when there is a new "biblical, missionary and united" Anglicanism in North America. A simple glance at the spiffy visual presentation of the process (see HERE) or the timeline of actions and issues (HERE) are enough to remind us that the object of realignment is not what the former bishop of San Joaquin has done - align himself and his cohorts with the Province of the Southern Cone. That is a stop-gap measure. The end game is realignment by coalition into an new Anglican union in North America. The plan has been and is to use alignment with other Provinces as a means of getting to a new place - a new ecclesiastical entity in North America that will seek recognition from other Anglican Provinces as the true, blue, real and bonified Anglican Church in the neighborhood.

The time line on the CCP pages is particularly interesting as a reminder of this plan since it includes several actions for 2008.

1. Province by province visitation and appeal for recognition of the "separate ecclesiastical structure in North America"
2. CCP Leadership Council 2: Advent, 2008
   1. Reports and adoption of work from committees and task forces
3. Constitutional convention for an Anglican union held at the earliest possible date agreeable to all the Partners

The sense of the matter is that the Provinces of the Anglican Communion will be visited and asked to recognize the new entity when it emerges, that work supposedly done by Advent 2008 when the CCP Leadership Council meets. A Constitutional Convention would then be planned, most likely in 2009.

The Common Cause Partnership (CCP) will need to get the existing ecclesial groups to buy on to these developments, so in the Province by Province visitation, particular attention will need to be given to those Provinces who have taken on various churches in the Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada and have provided bishops for local oversight.

We can be sure that CCP bishops will be at GAFCON and at Lambeth working to line up support. They will also be quite willing to use the possible realignment of the Anglican Communion to a new structure not headed by the Archbishop of Canterbury and not based in London as a threat or a promise if they do not get the recognition they seek from Canterbury.

What will this new ecclesiastical structure look like, in terms of dioceses? It will finally be territorial - in that it is a structure for all of North America. It will involved dioceses, although it is not clear if there will be overlapping jurisdictions based on the source ecclesastical groups out of which they came (for example there might continue to be a CANA diocese with parishes not necessarily in a particular territorial jurisdiction).

It will be missionary, particularly if the agenda of the Anglican Missinon in the Americas is heard. Thus it will see unreached areas of the US and Canada (which will include anywhere that the apostate Episcopal Church is active) as mission territory.

But my bet is that it will fairly quickly become an Anglican-type ecclesiastical structure, with territorial dioceses whose responsibilities are for the work in a particular area of the US or Canada.

For this reason I think it is important to look at the current "strong" centers of realignment churches as a hint to future territorial divisions. To the extent that this is on the minds of bishops currently contemplating an exit from the Episcopal Church it may explain something of the strategies they might use regarding temporary alignment until the great day of union.

Looking at the map on the Common Cause Partnership home page, which lists 1100 parishes, (which includes Episcopal Church related parishes and all other Common Cause Partner congregations) one can see the "hot spots" where there are large numbers of churches in an area. Major hot spots are located in Southern California, Mid Texas, Illinois, Florida, South Carolina, Virgnia/ Washington DC, Pittsburgh, and upstate New York. Not surprising given the Network Dioceses of the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin, Episcopal Dioceses of Fort Worth, Quincy, Albany, Pittsburgh, the American Mission in the Americas concentration in Florida and South Carolina, and the Convocation of Anglicans in North America in the Virginia area.

So, casting an eye to what a union with dioceses and bishops might look like, my sense is there will be the following: The West (Schofield); The South West (Iker); the Mid South (Reformed Episcoapl Church?); The South East (AMiA?); the Middle Atlanatic (CANA); the North East (Duncan); The Mid West (Quincy?). The scattered Uganda and Kenya congregations will make their way into various new dioceses.

Of course this could be off course. The Reformed Episcopal Church may not finally make it into the group. The Kenya and Uganda groups might not be assimilated. Quincy might not go along with Fort Worth, San Joaquin and Pittsburgh. It's all pretty fluid.

But, just suppose Bishop Iker doesn't feel the necessity of going to the Southern Cone, believing that rather quickly there will be a new Anglican structure in North America? What if Pittsburgh votes not to "join" another province immediately but simply wait for a few months to regroup in this new structure. Might they not be in conversation with Canterbury to be "extra-provincial" for a short while prior to becoming part of a new province?

Katie Sherrod wrote recently, "It's interesting to note that very recently our bishop and other diocesan leaders have begun to drop a little bomb into discussions. Bishop Iker said at a recent meeting at All Saints Church that we shouldn't get too wedded to the idea of the Southern Cone. We may not be going there."

Perhaps Bishop Iker would just as soon be autonomous enough so that in the new mix of the united Anglican entity, he would be bishop of a wide area and not just Fort Worth. Better than than a diocese with limited jurisdiction under the governance of the Province of the Souther Cone. The folks at the bottom of South America are, afterall, lower than a snake's belly.

Things proceed apace in Virginia

A friend pointed out a small notice on the Diocese of Virginia news page, to wit:

"We are now less than six months away from a trial that will require significant preparations and are pleased that the Court has granted our request to proceed with discovery. We believe that a full and fair examination of the facts – including the opportunity for a thorough and necessary process of discovery – will show that the property in question is held in trust for The Episcopal Church and future generations of Episcopalians."

Good. Proceed apace.

The Plans of Fort Worth

Episcopal News Service today references a letter from the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to Presiding Bishop Venables of the Province of the Southern Cone. She writes, "The actions contemplated by some leaders in Forth Worth are profoundly uncanonical." No doubt she is referencing the changes in the constitution and canons of the Diocese of Fort Worth, some of which will require a second vote this fall. Executive Council has already ruled that constitutional changes that remove the accession to the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church are invalid, null and void, as are Diocesan canons that deny the validity or applicability of the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church in any of its specifics.

But the actions contemplated by some leaders in Fort Worth include plans for farming out the oversight of parishes that do not wish to join the Bishop and others in "discontinuing its (i.e. the Diocese of Fort Worth's) association with The Episcopal Church" to the Diocese of Dallas.

This last weekend I received an anonymously sent and unsolicited copy of a Draft proposal for "The Fort Worth Plan" dated 4/09/08, and marked Confidential, although without any attribution as to author or source of the request of confidentiality. Accompanying that was a draft of "Canon 41, Associated Congregations" which is referenced in "The Fort Worth Plan" as a proposed canonical change in the Diocese of Dallas. Both documents are scanned as jpeg pages and are available HERE.

The objectives of the Fort Worth plan are listed as follows:

"Through Canons adopted by both EDFW (Fort Worth) and EDD (Dallas), we will create a vehicle for EDFW Parishes to formally associate themselves with the EDD within TEC.

Such arrangement needs to be transparent, pastoral, voluntary, and flexible, creating a "safe harbor" for those Parishes and schools wanting to continue to be Episcopalian. At the same time, the arrangement needs to provide Parishes appropriate pastoral oversight and a means to participate fully in the life of the EDD, subject to limitations imposed by the Constitution and Canons of TEC."

The Plan is proposed as a pastoral response to those parishes wishing to remain part of the Episcopal Church. The plan clearly states that "Nothing in this Plan is intended to sanction or promote EDFW's disassociation from TEC." But of course it assumes the success of such effort, in that it is meant to provide a contingency plan for parishes that wish to remain part of the TEC IF EDFW leaves TEC. Without impugning the motives of the authors of this Plan, and assuming it exists for pastoral purposes, it is still quite an amazingly misguided proposal.

Several things to note:

To suggest that Episcopal Parishes ought to become part of an adjoining Diocese rather than stay where they are, maintaining that they are parishes of the Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth (EDFW), is a convenient way to get them out of the way, so that the leaders of the current EDFW can claim that all their parishes have gone with them to the Province of the Southern Cone or whatever other Province with which they may wish to align. This saves the current leadership of EDFW from the inconvenient truth that they have left the Episcopal Church and may no longer have rights to hold the property of the EDFW, etc. It also turns the parishes in question into petitioners – asking for admission elsewhere – when in fact they are the remaining members of the real EDFW.

Whatever the pastoral motivations (and I am sure there are some), this Plan has the effect of reducing the authority of these parishes to zero as regards the EDFW and its future and places them in a position of powerlessness as regards both the leadership of EDFW and EDD – being the ones leaving the first, and petitioning the second for admission. However, as it stands now those parishes wishing to remain part of The Episcopal Church ARE the EDFW if and when most of the leadership, clergy and parishioners leave for other venues. There is absolute value in the stance that these parishes REMAIN EPISCOPAL.

As to the Canons, etc. The Episcopal Diocese of Dallas (EDD) (according to the section "Plan 1") "will advise the Presiding Bishop of TEC of this Plan and solicit her concurrence." Under what authority might she give such concurrence? Article 5.6 of the Constitution of the Episcopal Church provides for the possibility of jurisdiction for some territory of one diocese to be ceded to another. What is required in such cases is concurrence of General Convention to the request made by both Dioceses of such changes. While it is not stated there, it seems that the territory ceded from the one to the other is expected to be contiguous.

There is no provision for parishes to become "Associated Parishes" of a Diocese in which they are not physically located, nor indeed for the ceding of territory to be made on the basis of parishes at all. On the matters being proposed in the Fort Worth Plan there seems to be no guidance from the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.

The matter of canonical residence for the clergy wishing to remain part of the Episcopal Church is even more confused.

The Presiding Bishop said, apparently of the contemplation of those actions that will lead to an attempt to capture the flag and march off to the Southern Cone or elsewhere, that they "are profoundly uncanonical." In pursuit of those ends it is not surprising that the leadership of Fort Worth with help from friends in Dallas would put forward The Fort Worth Plan. Under the guise of being a pastoral provision it reduces the congregations and clergy of the EDFW wishing to continue as Episcopalians to powerless petitioners devoid of any authority, save that of refugee.

Worse, of course, it gives the current leadership of EDFW apparent authority to declare the jurisdiction of the current diocese their own and in turn that territory (now vacated by those terrible Episcopalians) as part of this or that intruder Province.

Quite a plan!

The answer to all such plans must be NO. Episcopalians have every reason to be in Fort Worth; Episcopal Church parishes have no reason to seek cover in Dallas; all of this is totally unnecessary. They have the authority to be the Episcopal Church in place and the power that derives from the ministry of all baptized persons to be the church in place. The Plan is a diversion and confusing. It is the product of people making it up as they go along.

Episcopalians in Fort Worth have only to organize and claim their authority to constitute a continuing Episcopal body in that jurisdiction. The Living Church article on the Presiding Bishop's visit to the Diocese of Dallas had this to say, "Bishop Jefferts Schori assured her questioners that a plan similar to the one employed in San Joaquin has already been prepared. When the Fort Worth delegation declared that they have been forgotten in this battle, the Presiding Bishop replied, "Have you been watching San Joaquin? They were not forgotten and now show dynamic signs of new life. You will not be forgotten, either."

Fr. Jake has been following events in Fort Worth, particularly the development of the Standing Committee of North Texas Episcopalians, and frequent visits to his blog will be important in the next few days. I can attest from personal experience in a visit to meet with many in the diocese who intend to remain Episcopalians that there are those who have every intention of staying where they are and being the Episcopal Church in Fort Worth.

Go for it!

Venables and the intentions of Fort Worth

The Archbishop of Canada asked Presiding Bishop Venables of the Southern Cone not to come, but since Bishop Venables does not seem to mind grinding against the spirit of the Windsor Report, collegiality among the Primates and what all, he is going anyway.

While out there in Anglican land, Bishop Venables is going to visit the Diocese of Fort Worth, to, as the Diocesan website states, "The Diocese of Fort Worth is considering aligning with the Province of the Southern Cone, and this visit will help clarify the practicalities, benefits, and possible drawbacks of such a move." He will of course come at the Bishop's invitation. It is billed as a pastoral visit.

No one doubts what Bishop Iker and the leadership of the Diocese intend. They intend to promote the idea of "aligning with the Province of the Southern Cone," and if the required amendments to the Constitution and Canons of Forth Worth and related practical decision are made, to act on that idea. This is a warm up for the pitch.

We rise to play a greater part

Most of my friends find it curious and just a bit appalling that Anglicans are spending so much time in solemn and serious infighting concerning moral (read sexual) issues. They wonder for our sanity. They mostly do not pay much attention to the details of the arguments.

I do pay attention. I have tried to listen to the voices that say again and again that sex between persons of the same sex is evil and I have heard their argument from scriptural restrictions. I am and remain unconvinced.

I was recently asked just exactly where I stand regarding the morality of homosexual sex, aka "homosexual behavior." So here is a response. No surprise, I am sure.

At the last, after all the arguments to the contrary, I still believe that sexual expression between persons of the same sex is no more evil or good than is sexual expression between men and women. And the Church's statement from General Convention 1990 that "physical sexual expression is appropriate only within the lifelong monogamous union of husband and wife" is totally inadequate. Sexual intercourse encompasses such a wide variety of "physical sexual expression" that no opinion about the moral value of such intercourse or expression, based on the anatomical characteristics of the participants or the purpose of sex as procreative, can hold as sufficient.

As to marriage, I am convinced that holiness of marriage is not in marriage, but in God's blessing on people committed to life long companionship. I see no reason to suppose that God does not, or can not, bless such commitments when they are other than between a man and a woman. The Church ought do no less.

More, I have come to believe that we Christians, who at our best are filled with gratitude and grateful hearts for all God's gifts and bound by the call to do good to and for one another, are often disabled in moral decision making concerning sexuality. The source of that disability is the idolatry attached to our use of words, and in particular to statements from Scripture which are the product of incrustation of translation, interpretation and manipulation. We are disabled by the idolatrous use of the biblical material. None of us escape the consequences.

I believe Christians are ill equipped to condemn persons of the same sex who are in love with one another for acting on that love in physical ways or for seeking ways to establish and maintain commitment to one another and for seeking blessing from God and the community. Moreover, given the realities of past Christian willingness to condone a wide variety of moral behavior that we would now consider reprehensible and the tendency to resist change from that behavior, the Church carries a beam in its own eye and has no business demanding that others remove the speck (if there is one) in their own.

We have every reason to hold ourselves and all we can convince to boundaries of physical sexual expression that make for free consent and maintain respect for the other. We can make a claim to understand that the committed relations carry the weight of the relation between Christ and the Church - a mutuality of sacrificial giving. We can hope that such relationships abound and that life long commitments are made, maintained and celebrated.

We have no reason to base the whole of our understanding of sexual relations between persons on Scriptures alone. That is an abuse of the Word of God and a travesty of the life of faith. Faithful people work their way in fear and trembling through the pathways of companionship, and even more so when sexual desire and need are present. We will be informed by whatever means possible in order to deal with the realities of our lives.

The Word of God is our constant companion. That Word is a comfort, always with us, but is also uncomfortable in its provocative call to live not for ourselves but for others. But that Word is not the writings on the page itself, rather the Scripture is a gateway into the Word.

I have been sitting with something Matt Kennedy wrote in a sermon he preached this last Sunday, "Homosexual behavior is considered so offensive to God that those who engage in it and do not repent will not enter his kingdom."

There is nothing to say to Matt on this. He preached it and believes it and those who heard and believe will have to share with him the consequences. But I beli