Regrouping at Church Center

In the midst of the storm occasioned by the perfectly awful bill being proposed in the Uganda legislature, the wringing of hands about who speaks for The Episcopal Church on such matters and how long it takes to get a statement out, and the election in Los Angeles of The Rev. Mary Glasspool to be bishop, a major regrouping of the Church Center staff is taking place with almost no notice at all.

The Episcopal News Service reported on December 1st that

"Seven current Episcopal Church Center employees have been named to lead program-based "mission teams" housed in a new Department of Mission.

An announcement from the Office of Public Affairs said that the new department and teams represent a staff reconfiguration necessitated after the General Convention approved a $141 million budget for 2010-2012 that was $23 million less than the current plan. Approximately 40 staff positions were either eliminated or reduced.

The teams and leaders are:

• Diocesan and Congregational Ministries -- the Rev. Bob Honeychurch (currently program officer for congregational vitality)
• Diversity, Social and Environmental Ministries -- Sarah Eagle Heart (currently program officer for Native American ministries)
• Episcopal Migration Ministries -- Deborah Stein (currently Episcopal Migration Ministries director)
• Federal Ministries -- Bishop George Packard (currently bishop suffragan for federal ministries)
• Global Partnerships -- Canon Margaret Larom (currently interim director and program officer for international justice and peacemaking)
• Government Advocacy for Peace and Justice -- Alex Baumgarten (currently interim director of the Office of Government Relations and international policy analyst)
• Lifelong Christian Formation and Vocation -- Bronwyn Clark Skov (currently program officer for lifelong Christian formation and youth)

The public affairs announcement said the reconfiguration "continues to move into its new strategic model emphasizing project-based goal-oriented mission and ministry."

This is in line with the new configuration presented to The Executive Council in October by the Chief Operations Officer, Linda Watt. That new plan was reviewed by Ms. Watt at Executive Council, but at that time no persons were appointed as heads of those mission teams.

Regrouping of this sort is mostly done as a staffing matter requiring no action by Council. It is the staff response to the work given it by General Convention and the Executive Council within the parameters of budget constraints. It is dull stuff, except of course that it immediately effects the staff as they work together and anybody in the church who wishes to use the resources of the Church Center.

The promise of new possibilities following the 2006 Convention led to an expansion of effort in several new areas and a full blown revision of staff structure in 2007. That all fell apart as the financial shortfalls of 2008, 2009 and the projections into the new triennium became clear. Wonderfully talented people hired in more hopeful times were laid of. In several areas the people who knew the most about vital areas of the church's life were retired or reassigned. The end result was a gradual degrading of collective staff knowledge in several vital areas.

The simpler structure of these seven mission areas is commendable. At least now there is some sense that there are particular staff persons immediately accountable for specific areas of concern. It seems a more efficient way of organizing.

Still, in evaluating the role of the Executive Council in decision making regarding statements by the Church, I find it interesting that almost nothing is said about the role of Executive Council in the decisions that form the configuration of Church Center staff or lead to the employment of specific management officers for the teams or units of the Church Center.

Actually, I like what I think is the role Executive Council has, namely that Church Center staffing and configuration are internal matters of the organization and its chief officers make those decisions and are accountable to The Executive Council and General Convention. What I wish is that concerned Episcopalians might pay some attention to the staffing changes, what offices are being reconfigured, cut, etc, and how much time and energy goes into the remaking of Church Center staff. We need on the one hand to support the management group in managing and on the other hand we need to provide critical and useful assessment of what management does.

All of this is of course dull, dull, dull. But it too is part of the oversight of the work of The Episcopal Church and "all orders" and all sorts and conditions of Episcopal Church folk have input to how this is done. But it requires that people speak up and engage the concerns they have about how work gets done.

I was quoted in the ENS article on reconfiguring Executive Council, where I asked,"Is there some way in which we can recapture the sense of the engagement with God's mission in the world, and by implication in our mission as Episcopalians to that end?" "Can we put our regulatory responsibilities as a corporate body into the context of a council gathered to proclaim good news in the context of the Episcopal Church?" I stand by those questions.

These are questions not only regarding how and when The Episcopal Church speaks on issues in a timely way, they also concern how we organize as a church to do our work.

As an example of the problems now to be faced: The Evangelism Office has been disbanded and the work hopefully will be done by some sort of network of interested persons. Will there be anyone at the Church Center who will know about this network, or assist the network in getting started, or provide training in networking strategies?

In the midst of all the "hot" issues, let us not forget the day to day issues of changing from a program oriented Church Center to one that is enabling of program and mission in the wider church.

Restore Peace with Justice following Maguindanao Massacre

On November 23rd a terrible massacre took place in Maguindanao, on the island of Mindanao in the Philippines. The National Council of Churches in the Philippines has spoken out and Episcopal News Service has followed up with THIS STORY.

Now we have a statement from the Episcopal Diocese of the Southern Philippines signed by the bishop, THE RT. REV. DANILO L. BUSTAMANTE. We wait for a statement from the Prime Bishop of the Philippines.

Here is the letter:

Restore Peace with Justice

A STATEMENT FROM THE BISHOP AND THE DIOCESAN COUNCIL OF THE EPISCOPAL DIOCESE OF SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES

“The fruit of justice will be peace, and the effect of righteousness is quietness and trust for ever.” (Isa. 32:17)

The Episcopal Diocese of Southern Philippines joins the public uproar in denouncing the “Ampatuan, Maguindanao Massacre” on November 23, 2009 and in crying for justice for the hapless victims.

Totally unacceptable, unlawful, unjust, and inhuman describe the indiscriminate killings of 57 women, lawyers, journalists and other innocent civilians trapped in that dreadful incident which is violative to the sacredness of human life and contrary to both Christian and Muslim teachings.

In a place where moral decadence has gone far and deep; where abusive authority reigns supreme with powers over life and death, the damage is unfathomable and truly reflective of the culture and dynamics that is prevailing in the region.

This crisis challenges the spiritual aspirations that the religious sector has been persevering in efforts to build relationships of mutual respect among believers of different faiths and cultures in Mindanao .

In this time of dire need let us build stronger bridges to finally put across the message of faith in the Almighty and in our common commitment to work for peace and justice for all the peoples in Mindanao .. This need to intensify our efforts to achieve that elusive peace in Mindanao has already been underlined with urgency due to the recent acts of barbarism and utter lawlessness that mark the cry for peace in this divided island.

And while we pursue conditions of Shalom in Mindanao , we urge the government to lay aside political exigencies and alliances to bring all the perpetrators of this heinous crime before the bar of justice. Only then can we mitigate the loss of life of defenseless women, journalists and civilian passersby senselessly slain in the massacre. With swift justice delivered, the door to peace in Mindanao can be pursued with even greater vigor and relentlessness.

The EDSP joins the nation and the world in a common stand versus the perpetrators of this outrage. We extend our prayers and solidarity to the victims’ relatives for justice of their kin, a necessary first step in the achievement of a closure of this dark episode in our nation’s history.


(Sgd.) THE REV. FRANCIS JUNE A. IMPERIAL
Secretary, Diocesan Council

Attested:

(Sgd.) THE RT. REV. DANILO L. BUSTAMANTE
Bishop, Episcopal Diocese of Southern Philippines
Episcopal Church in the Philippines
184 Sinsuat Avenue, Cotabato City
December 3, 2009

Blogger charges Episcopal Church with incoherency: And?

Since when is a press release by an opinion monger news? ENS picked it up, but why?

The Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon thinks the election of the Rev. Mary Douglas Glasspool as bishop is a bad idea. He has published a statement which is nothing more than a press release for writers looking for a good quote. Bet it is quoted several times over. This is news about as much as quoting a particular sort of puffed rice as saying, "Snap, Crackle and Pop" is news.

Dr. Harmon is pleased to tell us,

"This decision represents an intransigent embrace of a pattern of life Christians throughout history and the world have rejected as against biblical teaching. It will add further to the Episcopal Church's incoherent witness and chaotic common life, and it will continue to do damage to the Anglican Communion and her relationship with our ecumenical partners.

--The Rev. Dr. Kendall Harmon is Canon Theologian of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina"

And?

Kendall Harmon is a fine person, a good priest, and all that. He is also working well beyond his pay grade. Granted he is Dr., he is Canon Theologian. In reality he is only a major conservative blogger.

But really, "This decision represents an intransigent embrace of a pattern of life Christians throughout history and the world have rejected as against biblical teaching."? Come on.

This decision represents the willingness of the Diocese of Los Angeles to elect a fine priest to be a bishop in the church, knowing that her manner of life is exemplary and her honesty in presentation of self a model for all of us.

The Rev. Dr. Canon Kendall Harmon is in a crabby mood. Not good for a fine fellow who loves his children and grandchildren.


I say this as,

The Rev. Dr. Mark Harris, Canon, Episcopal Church of the Philippines, and D. Humanities, Trinity University of Asia, none of which titles do anyone, including me, any good at all.

I believe the election of The Rev. Mary Glasspool as bishop exemplifies the very best of Episcopal and Anglican sensibilities. She was elected because of who she is, not in spite of it.

Diocese of Los Angles breaks all ceilings.

Yesterday the Diocese of Los Angles elected its first woman bishop, today its first woman bishop in a partnered relationship. In both cases the diocese elected wonderfully talented and gracious people. Bishop elect Diane Jardine Bruce was elected quickly yesterday. Moving on to the second election Bishop elect Mary Douglas Glasspool was elected after seven rounds.

Here to the right is the clip from the seventh and last round on the second election. The election quickly became a contest between Mary Glasspool and Martir Vasquez, with Mary gathering more clergy and Martir more lay votes in early balloting.

This election will of course be noted because Bishop elect Glasspool is a partnered lesbian. It will bring forward the practical possibilities of gaining sufficient consents from dioceses and bishops. There will need to be a great deal of support for her as her request for consents goes forward.

It will be too easy in all the thumping around to miss the point that The Rev. Mary Glasspool is superbly qualified, has served the church in a wide variety of ways, and is spiritually centered. The Diocese of Los Angles obviously though long and hard about it all and is walking with her in this journey.

Both bishops elect will need our prayers as they work into these new ministries.

The Episcopal Church speaks on the question of the Uganda anti-gay bill.

The Episcopal News Service ran this headline, "Presiding Bishop expresses concern about Uganda's proposed anti-homosexuality bill." That is certainly true as far as it goes. She did make a statement. Read it HERE. The statement is prefaced by the following, "Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has issued a statement expressing concern about the pending Ugandan legislation that would introduce the death penalty for people who violate portions of that country's anti-homosexuality laws."

The statement itself makes it clear that it is The Episcopal Church that has the concern, not just or only the Presiding Bishop. It begins, "The Episcopal Church joins many other Christians and people of faith in urging the safeguarding of human rights everywhere. We do so in the understanding that "efforts to criminalize homosexual behavior are incompatible with the Gospel of Jesus Christ" (General Convention 2006, Resolution D005)." Throughout the language of the statement the Presiding Bishop uses the language "we" not in reference to herself or her office, but to The Episcopal Church. The message contends that it is The Episcopal Church that is concerned about the pending Ugandan legislation.

The Presiding Bishop's statement is a classic example of the PB exercising the role given in the canons (I 2.4a 1-2), namely, "speaking for the Church as to the policies, strategies and programs authorized by the General Convention; (and) (2) Speak God's words to the Church and to the world, as the representative of this Church and its episcopate in its corporate capacity."

As is often the case such statements grow from a variety of concerns and interactions. In this case including strong concerns from Executive Council members that a position paper clarifying The Episcopal Church's concerns was necessary. In my previous post, Moving from corporate governance to incorporated governance I indicated that this wider networking of concerns was part of a possible shift in governance in part a product of communications options.

The fact that the Presiding Bishop's statement is cast as a statement about how The Episcopal Church understands the issues at hand is important, for it acknowledges both that the Presiding Bishop can and does speak for the Church and that such statements gather in a variety of concerns and actions taken in the process of policy development - actions of General Convention, Anglican Communion deliberations, and statements by this Church and ecumenically supporting human rights and opposing discriminatory legislation against gay and lesbian persons.

Most interestingly, the Presiding Bishop has taken the opportunity to address the issue of fear mongering and extending of anti-gay prejudice by persons and organizations in the US. She writes, "Finally, we note that much of the current climate of fear, rejection, and antagonism toward gay and lesbian persons in African nations has been stirred by members and former members of our own Church. We note further that attempts to export the culture wars of North America to another context represent the very worst of colonial behavior. We deeply lament this reality, and repent of any way in which we have participated in this sin."

The whole of this statement is carefully crafted and it includes the concerns of many. It is more than individual opinion but rather the position of The Episcopal Church and it calls for a variety of actions by church and state. It calls on Christian conscience and at the same time acknowledges that the road to social justice is a challenge to us all.

I believe this statement is an excellent summation of The Episcopal Church's stance. The role of particular Executive Council members in the call for and development of this statement has been noted by ENS in an earlier article. The President of the House of Deputies has spoken forcefully on the issue. Now we have this statement.

Some have been critical about how long it has taken for TEC to respond. My sense is that, given the changing and developing role of governance by a larger group who understanding themselves "incorporated" into a more horizontal authority pattern, and given the corporate structures in place, there will be occasions when unanimity of response will require some time.

The issue first came to the fore on September 25th when the bill was published in Uganda. It was put on the docket October 14th. I believe Changing Attitude first wrote on the issue October 30th, although members of CA wrote the ABC, etc, prior to that posting. Essentially six weeks have transpired since the issue was clearly put before the churches.

That is a very short time for the gathering in of all the information needed to make an adequate response. The fact that the bill is clearly onerous and contrary to what we believe is just and right as a Christian community is easy to determine. Six weeks is a long time for that determination. Less easy to know is what sort of statement is helpful to the social, political and religious processes and communities "on the ground" in Uganda. Six weeks is fairly short for this.

Thanks to the Presiding Officers, the Executive Council members who called for further immediate work on the issue, and the community of concern, both in the blogsphere and elsewhere, for working through all this.

Why the Presiding Bishop is a gift: Her interview with PBS Atlanta

The honeymoon has been over now for several years. The Presiding Bishop is now about 2/5 through her term of office and most of her abilities and limitations have been tested. The polish is off the crown.

Still in some quite remarkable ways Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori continues to speak in ways that make me proud to be part of the same church with her. Give a listen to her interview on WABE in Atlanta. Go to the link below and click on the audio bar.

WABE: Episcopal Presiding Bishop Says Door Still Open to Gay Bishops (2009-11-16)

President of House of Deputies Anderson on Uganda

ENS is reporting that the President of the House of Deputies, Bonnie Anderson, has written a letter to the Consultation, concerning opposition to the proposed anti-gay legislation being considered by Uganda. Her letter has not yet been posted, as far as I know. Neither her site nor the Consultations' site as yet posts the actual letter and there is no link to it in the ENS article. So what we have is snippets culled by ENS.

Dr. Anderson does say this, in the letter as quoted in the ENS article, "I hope and believe that a vigorous statement will be forthcoming, and that I will be able to support this statement wholeheartedly."

Her statement is most welcome and I too hope that a "vigorous statement" will be made soon.

Stay tuned.

Does the Church have anything to say about the war in Afganistan?

It is no surprise that the war in Afghanistan is high on the list of issues of highest concern this week. Many of us are waiting for the President's announcement of the way in which his administration will work to end this war. The war continues, with our support of a shaky, limited and corrupt government and unclear endgames, and with mounting casualties from various armed forces in the conflict.

What do the churches have to say about this conflict? What might they say given a new set of directives in the coming weeks?

Adrian Hall reporting for Religious Intelligence writes about one church officer's response. The Bishop of Bath and Wells, Bishop Peter Price, has addressed the House of Lords voicing his belief that our engagement in Afghanistan requires much more than further troop assignments.

Hall writes, "Bishop Peter Price ... called for “a humanitarian and development surge” in the country. In a debate in the House of Lords on the Queen’s speech, Bishop Price said there had been talk in some quarters of a withdrawal but he did not think “we can simply pack up and come home”.

He told the Lords: “Unless we have been misled, there is a legitimate need to seek to protect from further acts of terrorism, but there is also a need to ensure that the welfare and safety of Afghan women and girls are protected from the Taliban, the necessity of basic health and welfare services, and the education of some 6 million children.”

Bishop Price is one of the most intelligent and resourceful bishops in England and a thoughtful pastor. His comments on a matter almost entirely forgotten by church leaders (at least so far) is most welcome.

The question is, when the grand plan for continued operations in Afghanistan are put forward, who will speak up or out?

Here in the little town of Lewes by the great water, where for 4 1/2 years a group of us stood week by week in silent vigil remembering the human cost of the war in Iraq, a new group is forming up. Last week three people appeared on the protest corner, protesting the human costs of the continuing and perhaps changing operations in Afghanistan. It is time to find voice again.

Mission at its best in the Anglican Communion

Episcopal Cafe, over in its Video section, posted a video from the Australian Board of Missions (ABM). The simple story of mission here is multi-layered, involving several different cultures and communities and even further afield a whole partnership of Anglican communion agents and ecumenical actors.

The primary work is by (i) a group of young people from Resurrection Parish in Fairview, on the edge of Manila, a parish of the Central Diocese of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines, with (ii) a urban mission on the edge of a rubbish dump in Manila. The story is told (iii) through the eyes of a young mission partner from Australia and then (iv) from the standpoint of ABM. (v) The Rector of Resurrection Parish, Fr. Rex Reyes, talks about how the work of these young people in his parish has helped give him focus (he is the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches of the Philippines) and then (vi) the young woman who runs the project from Fairview talks about her own vocation. Back behind all that (vii) is the sustaining work of UTO and The Episcopal Church for the work of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines and (viii) the long term efforts of ABM in the Philippines.

The mix of people, churches, training events, youth groups, and mission partners gives some idea of the sort of mission work undertaken in the Anglican Communion that truly warrants being called Anglican. It takes the whole family of churches to provide mutual responsibility and interdependence of this sort!

In my many trips to the Philippines and the ECP I have tried on free Sundays to go to Fairview, to Resurrection Parish. In a way it is my "home church" while in the Philippines. It was a delight to see this video.

Take a look for yourself.

Giving thanks...

For so much, for so many people, for good times and true, not just now but at all times, my last crabby note not withstanding.

You, dear friends, are more than many sparrows.



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPhone

The truth slips and slides away ... but who cares?

These are just little things, and mostly I say, "Why bother." But it ticks me off when people who know better, are better and could be best, mess with my brain cells in such obvious but sloppy ways. I am of course NOT speaking of spelling or grammar! I am from the school that contends that we, after all, are professionals and screwing around with the language is our right.

But little things irk me.

Religious Intelligence posts a number of articles by George Conger. Reading what George writes is an important part of my daily run through Anglican / Episcopal blogland. Sometimes George gets to the news or to some part of the core of the news more quickly and with greater depth than do other writers. So I find it irking when he writes, in a recent article in Religious Intelligence, "In California’s Fifth District Court of Appeal in Fresno, briefs were filed last week in the case of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin v the Anglican Diocese of San Joaquin. In June a lower court granted summary judgment to the Episcopal diocese in its bid to seize the assets of the Anglican diocese." (bold mine)

The reality is that The Episcopal diocese wishes to retrieve (not seize) the assets taken by certain persons who then constituted the Anglican diocese. From the realignment perspective the officers of the Diocese retained those assets rightfully. From the Episcopal Church perspective the departing officers wrongfully took the silver with the, or foolishly believed they were entitled to do so. So a more fair minded writer would have said, "the Episcopal diocese in its dispute with the Anglican diocese over the ownership of certain assets." That does not make as good press as claiming that the Episcopal diocese is out to seize.

And it irks me when a blogger from the Diocese of Central New York posts the whole of a recent blog of mine with a new heading, "another power grab in pecusa leadership?" on the blog DCNY, and closing with the footer from my site, "POSTED BY MARK HARRIS AT 11/24/2009 10:11:00 AM." Nowhere in the DCNY blog post is there any link to my blog and including my footer on his blog leave the assumption that I posted my essay there. I did not, and I certainly did not in any way agree with his headline, "another power grab in pecusa leadership?" I am glad the DCNY blogger found my essay interesting. I am not so glad that it was posted with a different headline an with the footer from my blog indicating that I posted it.

There is a lot of sloppy work out there on the information highway. I ought to know, being responsible for some of it. But maybe a bit of care could be taken to keep the streets clean.

Moving from corporate governance to incorporated governance

The news that there will be a telephonic meeting of Executive Council on December 7th, called by members of Council to address the concerns of members about the anti-gay, anti-freedom of speech, homophobic legislation being considered in Uganda is good news. Difficult, but good.

The news is of course good because in its own strange way the church is getting itself together to make a statement of outrage at the slip back into rampant homophobic hate for which the Uganda's legislation is only an example.

It is difficult news because beneath the surface there are passionate currents running. Some of these passions concern the vision and "place of being" of the GLBT community in the life of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. Some concern the matter of the international movement for justice and civil rights. Some concern the governance of The Episcopal Church. Some concern the persons and groups actually governing - The Presiding Bishop, the Officers of the Executive Council / Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, the Executive Council itself and the commissions / committees / boards and agencies of The Episcopal Church.

The news is difficult, in other words, because it points to a wide range of issues that, should they be explored, concern a systemic reevaluation of who governs in TEC and why.

The news is also good because the matters raised by the effort to articulate the position which is almost universally acknowledged as being TEC's regarding the repression signaled by the proposed legislation - namely that we oppose and strongly condemn the criminalization of homosexuals - also helps us focus our attention on the need to rethink the future forms of governance in this Church.

This Executive Council, with its particular makeup and with its symbolically important leadership in the Presiding Bishop and President of the House of Deputies, and with its feisty entering class of 2009, is in no mood to take past Executive Council patterns of action as normative. The fact that members, rather than the Presiding Bishop, would call a special meeting is significant. That they would do so concerning matters that in the past would have been either brought up in regular session of Executive Council or spoken to by the Presiding Bishop is also worth noting. And, to make matters even more interesting, the members of Executive Council are more and more participant members in a very different community of knowledge and authority - one based on knowledge and authority as shared rather than derivative of this or that matter of merit. All of which is to say that the Executive Council, formed as a mechanism for corporate organization is becoming a mechanism within an incorporated - that is to say incarnated - community.

The development of new senses of the role and function of Executive Council is in part a product of increasing tensions in the Anglican Communion and within the Episcopal Church, tensions that have not adequately been addressed by existing canons and procedures of the church. So just as the Presiding Bishop has had to find new ways to work with the canons to provide clarity that particular bishops have indeed abandoned the communion of this Church, the Executive Council has had to find new ways to deal with the possibility of constant communication and demands for action among its members. Communication beyond the confines of the meetings of the Council begin to yield in passions, concerns, matters of inquiry and even matters of political struggle that were not present when Council could only correspond by snail mail or fax and by telephone, and when the rigors of corporate behavior mitigated against such rash interaction.

So it would appear that Executive Council is on a cusp, to use old age of Aquarius jargon. We are moving from being the corporate board of a corporation - the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society - and the governing body between Conventions of the General Convention of The Episcopal Church - to being the incorporation of a broad based body of elected persons who will define for themselves the limits and actions appropriate to the Council.

Where before we might have expected the corporate board rules to prevail here there are too many "networking" linkages to make those rules of behavior work. Now new ways of communication, new lines of trustworthy or trust building linkages will develop, new sources of power and authority will develop. The Executive Council is no longer understood by its members as being modeled as a corporate board. The message of inclusion, on a board level, has begun to effect the workings of Executive Council itself.

I think this is to the good. But there is no way that it will not be painful. Persons whose offices have power precisely in a corporate model will find these changes very difficult. Others who have built their own position on allegiance to this or that officer will find themselves no longer having a court in which to move about with subsidiary powers. At the same time various factions will develop and at one time or another attempt to become the new corporate officers, not realizing that their powers derive not from the old values of the corporate board but from the new values of the incorporated community.

These are times of heady change and there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. However the issue of responding to the the Uganda legislation plays out, the power shifts that result are signaling a move from corporate to incorporate, from carnation to incarnation, from a form of governance based on civil models (and what are bishops except ecclesial alternatives to civil administrators in the Roman Empire) to a form of governance based on a post modern projection of the best of reformation thinking in which the company of believers share the oversight collectively.

I think we are beginning to see in all this a movement beyond the mere shadowing and mimicking of civil structures to a new attempt to grasp the possibility of all the faithful working as an incorporated entity to do the work God has given them to do.

So the good news is that Executive Council is flexing its "incorporated" muscle. The bad news is that until it gets it all worked out there will be the odd wild punch and the occasional one well placed blow below the belt. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth and blood on the floor.

And after perhaps a new beginning.

Brazil on the Anglican Covenant, particularly part 4.

The Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil (IEAB) has published an important paper on the Ridly-Covenant Draft Anglican Covenant. The Church of Brazil has given careful and studious church wide attention to the development of an Anglican Covenant and its formal commentaries and reports on the various drafts have been extremely helpful. They have asked that this statement be widely distributed.

The cover note from the Provincial Secretary, with the text attached is as follows:

Dear brothers and sisters

Grace and Peace!

On behalf of our Primate Mauricio Andrade, I`m so delighted to announce and publish the Response from our Province to the Consultation Process on the proposed Anglican Covenant.
Such consultation started from the last ACC meeting and we spent a careful attention and wide participation within our Province trough bishops, clergy and lay leaders. The special Primate`s Commission was very well involved in this process and finally, with prayers and high consideration we offer our response to the Anglican Communion as a contribution on this reflection about a proposed Covenant.

Receive it as a gift and a voice from a special context. Our prayers are with all the partners provinces involved in the same process. May God help us to find ways to strength our Communion with bonds of love, mutual respect and commitment with the God`s will.

We ask kindly that this response could be forward to all related people around the Anglican Communion.

With best wishes,

Revd. Canon Francisco de Assis da Silva
The Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil
Provincial Secretary


Here is the text that was attached. It is a fairly long but an important read.


A STATEMENT FROM THE ANGLICAN EPISCOPAL CHURCH OF BRAZIL (IEAB) ON THE ANGLICAN COVENANT RIDLEY-CAMBRIDGE DRAFT

Almighty God, to whom all hearts are open, all desires known, and from whom no secrets are hid: Cleanse the thoughts of our hearts by the inspiration of your Holy Spirit, that we may perfectly love you, and worthily magnify your holy Name; through Christ our Lord. Amen.
(Collect for Purity, IEAB Book of Common Prayer)

Foreword

The Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil (IEAB) received the Ridley-Cambridge draft of the Anglican Covenant for study and reflection after the last meeting of the ACC in Jamaica. The procedure adopted was to convene a Special Commission of the Bishop Primate, formed by bishops, clergy and laypersons for an initial two-day meeting of prayer and reflection.
Besides the Bishop Primate, the Rt Rev Mauricio Andrade, the following people also participated: two Diocesan bishops (the Rt Rev Jubal Pereira Neves and the Rt Rev Sebastião Armando Gameleira), three presbyters (IEAB General Secretary, Rev Francisco de Assis Silva; the President of the House of Clergy, Rev. Luiz Alberto Barbosa; and the Director of the Centre for Anglican Studies, Rev. Carlos Eduardo Calvani) and two laypersons, our representative in the ACC, Dr Joanildo Burity, and Mrs Erica Furukawa.

Our meeting took place peacefully, and included Morning Prayer and Holy Communion. We heard the detailed report from our representative in the ACC and gave full consideration to the study of the Ridley-Cambridge Draft.

After careful analysis, a report was written singling out some of the difficulties raised by the document. This report was sent to all the dioceses with the request that internal groups of study and reflection would be set up and that their results returned to the Commission by 20th October for reappraisal.

Not all dioceses managed to conduct the study in time. but on the basis of the contributions received from some dioceses and the exhaustive work done by the Commission members during two days of gathering, we can now offer the following comments on the Ridley-Cambridge Draft.

1. The Current Situation in the Anglican Communion

1.1. We acknowledge that the Anglican Communion has historically gone through moments of crisis from its inception, and that these crises and tensions form part of the history of Anglicanism since its rupture with the Roman Church. Despite this, it has always managed to maintain throughout its history, the ability to dialogue with mutual respect, to affirm interdependence and to respect provincial boundaries.

1.2. We acknowledge that Anglicanism is not a “Church”, but a fellowship of national, autonomous and interdependent churches, united not only through bonds of affection, but also by a classic tradition developed over centuries, centred on worship, the incarnation, and the upholding of each culture’s ethos and contextual mission, as well as having a set of Instruments of Communion in which the various orders are represented, offer their particular contributions, and make decisions within their respective legitimate spheres of action.

1.3. We understand that there are situations specific to each country, region or context that must be faced according to criteria appropriate for the national churches, while being open to listening and counselling from other churches in the Communion. Our view is that the Anglican Communion cannot be identified with the Church of England, which is only part of the former.

1.4. We note that there has never been a normative statement of faith binding each of the national churches in the Anglican Communion, nor a central source of authority, but a dispersed authority according to the 1930 Lambeth Conference report and the encyclical signed by the bishops attending that Conference, whose Resolution 49 reads:
The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, which have the following characteristics in common:

a. they uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order as they are generally set forth in the Book of Common Prayer as authorised in their several Churches;
b. they are particular or national Churches, and, as such, promote within each of their territories a national expression of Christian faith, life and worship; and
c. they are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference .

1.5. We recognise that the current instruments of unity in the Anglican Communion need to be revised and strengthened in order to fulfil their purpose to keep the various churches interdependent in their understanding of the gospel and mission.

1.6. We believe that Communion is a gift of God and that the Anglican Communion is one of the many signs of this gift. Hence we commit ourselves to remain in communion and prayer with the other churches of the Anglican Communion, to share the same gospel, to uphold the principles of the Book of Common Prayer (which, however varied, maintains the same liturgical structure everywhere), to reaffirm our allegiance to the Lambeth Quadrilateral, to express our commitment to the “five marks of mission”, and to uphold our firm resolve to strengthen the already existing instruments of unity.

1.7. We acknowledge and value the work of the Ridley-Cambridge drafting committee, as well as recognise their intention to preserve the unity and interdependence of the churches of the Communion. However, we lament the fact that this process has been conducted without broad consultation with missiologists and liturgists, as well as the polemic circumstances, marked by mutual mistrust and judgement, which conferred a judicial character particularly on Section 4 of the Draft, showing little emphasis on spirituality, liturgy and mission, and accentuating traces of institutionalisation that significantly alter the ecclesiological nature of the Anglican Communion, bringing it closer to the idea of a denominational macro-structure.

2. Observations and doubts with regard to the Ridley-Cambridge Draft

2.1. On the first three sections
The Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil expresses its agreement with sections 1 to 3 of the proposed Covenant, in the understanding that these sections merely reaffirm the Baptismal Covenant (Pact) and what has been accumulated throughout the history of Anglicanism since the Lambeth Quadrilateral. The feeling of near consensus expressed by many churches in the Communion about these points, confronts us, at the same time, with a curious question: if such an affirmation is sufficient to identify us, while adding nothing to what has already been extensively shared, what is it that the Communion lacks which cannot be achieved through the existing instruments at its disposal?

2.2. On doubts and imprecision in relation to Section 4

2.2.1. We have a theological problem with the term “covenant”. The use of the term as a verb, in the preamble to the document raises theological issues that should merit more careful analysis. In the Scriptures, any initiative towards a “Covenant” or “Alliance” comes from God and not from us, contrary to what the document suggests, when it reads “we... solemnly covenant together in these following affirmations and commitments”. This is much closer to a contract in the modern Western political tradition appropriate for the state as a form of a binding political association. In the Scriptures, the term “covenant” or “alliance” is always used with reference to the relationship between God and his people. In the Book of Common Prayer of the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil we use the expression “Baptismal Alliance” in the Holy Baptism and Confirmation rites . We understand that the Covenant that binds us to God and to one another is Holy Baptism, and recommend that, in the Preamble to the text of the Covenant, the Baptismal Alliance be affirmed as sufficient to keep us united in mission.

2.2.2. The Commission members in Brazil were struck by the different literary style of Section 4 as compared to the previous ones, with sentences which resemble a legal canonical statute and not a proper mutual theological and missionary commitment. The text of the Covenant therefore assumes a legalistic tone of an instrument to resolve conflict, which goes beyond the existing instruments of communion.

2.2.3. We observe that Section 4 creates absolutely new and strange relational mechanisms. It has never been necessary in the history of Anglicanism to resort to such procedures because we have always tacitly experienced a state of “permanent covenanting”, trusting the Church consensus (sensus fidelium) without the need for written agreements. This consensus was understood in the sense of requiring a double focus: to deal with the emergence of new issues and theological and missiological challenges, and for the need not to rush into ultimate decisions before the “time of the Spirit”. That is, in the midst of controversies, consensus takes time to emerge and is the result of patient and merciful listening to God and to one another; it cannot be the expression of a final judgement about the faith or communion with one another, nor can it be a precedent for any change to our practices and beliefs.

2.2.4. We also express our doubt in relation to section 4.1.1, which deals with the formal acceptance of the Covenant. By speaking of “other Churches” that could subscribe to it, the possibility arises for Churches other than the current members of the Communion to be accepted, which raises doubts about the schismatic Anglican churches that have broken communion within existing Provinces, and today gather groups in open theological conflict with the Anglican Communion. It also opens, for lack of clarity, the possibility for other Christian confessions to join the Covenant, which then ceases to be specifically Anglican and becomes ecumenical. Though this last hypothesis is part of a deep Anglican aspiration, it is not a justification for the Covenant, nor does the Covenant seem to us to be an adequate instrument for that purpose. The outcome of this open-endedness would be otherwise: a disfiguration of Anglicanism through the incorporation of practices and traditions alien to its history or through the breaking of the theological, pastoral and spiritual balance that has historically been built within the Anglican Communion.

2.2.5. We understand that Section 4 of the Covenant inevitably leads to the creation of a fifth instrument of unity in the Anglican Communion. One of our dioceses stated that the reading of this Section caused an apprehensive reaction among those participating in the discussion, as they understood that the attribution of power to arbitrate on issues between Churches of the Communion to the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and the Primates’ Meeting, an affront to the Anglican view of the “bonds of affection”. Another diocese, however, considered it positive in that the creation (sic) of this Committee would represent an opportunity for “re-founding the Anglican Communion”.

2.2.6. Besides this innovation, an apprehension also emerged among some dioceses that the Joint Standing Committee may exercise powers of oversight in the internal life of national Churches, by receiving the munus to recommend that a Province be temporarily barred from participation in the instruments of unity where it is represented. It thereby wrongly establishes the principle of suspension even before any divergence can be effectively clarified, thus characterising a prejudgement without the right to defence. We note here a great internal contradiction in the document, for it also states that no Church will be subject to any external ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The fact that the composition of the Joint Standing Committee is drawn from the existing instruments of unity does not guarantee that it will act as a merely executive instance of Section 4 provisions. The way in which procedures are laid out will always imply assessment, judgement and decision-making that will give the Committee powers of decision above all the current instances, inevitably resulting in interference in internal matters of provinces, even if the existing legal provision there is being fully complied with. We are particularly concerned about the fact that while none of the instruments of unity possesses decision making or arbitration powers over the provinces, a representation of these may be given such powers, especially considering the asymmetry in the character of representation and forms of appointment of such participants in each of the instruments. The Joint Committee therefore has a normative and legitimate deficiency which
Section 4 does not clarify nor duly sorts out.

2.2.7. We are also of the opinion that Section 4 lacks clarity in regard to the form in which controversial matters will be dealt with. For example, can any kind of divergence be addressed to the Joint Standing Committee so as to start off the described process? Should the existing instruments of unity not be the preliminary instances of any process of questioning and clarification of disputes that may eventually be referred to the Committee? Alternatively, should the plenary of the Anglican Consultative Council, the most representative of the instruments of unity, not be the decision arena on any matters in which the breaking of communion or conflicts threatening the Communion, since all the provinces of the Communion are there represented (absolutely and in proportion of their relative size)? A properly amended ACC constitution, so as to reflect such an extraordinary role, would allow for the procedures to be taken by the Joint Standing Committee to have an ad referendum nature between the Council meetings, thus giving provinces the juridical safety that decisions would not take place without their direct participation.

2.2.8. The ambivalence or silence found in Section 4 provisions and the process of formal entry into the Covenant also give reason for doubt. For instance, what is the status of those provinces who will not subscribe to the Covenant or who may withdraw from it? In principle, the Churches that violate it will not necessarily lose their Anglican nature, that is, they would be declared in breach of the Covenant, but would not be declared non-Anglican. Nevertheless, in relation to those Churches that choose not to join the Covenant, it is not clear what status they would bear. Would they become second-class provinces within the Communion? What would the membership relation between these Churches and those signatories of the Covenant be? Would there be a possibility of adhering to the first three sections alone as sufficient to solve this potential status imbalance, leaving the adoption of Section 4 a matter of supplementary adherence? What would be the relationship between partner dioceses, in case one of them belongs to a province that has signed the Covenant while the other does not? Or, in the case when one of the two provinces receives a disciplinary sanction from the Joint Standing Committee? In our view, section 4 creates more doubts than certainties. Although one of our dioceses has manifested its support to the Covenant, another one asked for more clarification with reference to the criteria and procedures to be employed by the Joint Standing Committee. Another diocese expressed its concern that a “pact” in a normative sense may not unite us, and may even accentuate our differences, disuniting us further.

3. Our pledge

3.1. The fact that we are considering a Covenant to regulate the relationships between the provinces of the Communion points to yet another concern: that the current instruments of unity face a crisis of legitimacy and effectiveness. We believe that the way for the maintenance of the Communion passes through the strengthening of those instruments, rediscovering and reconfiguring their roles. Therefore, the reconstruction of the internal links within the Communion should be the condition prior to the adoption of any covenant, through mutual respect, dialogue, prayer and practical reflection in view of our mission.

3.2. We believe that the Communion needs, instead of a pact (Covenant), a joint commitment through which the missionary nature of the Church is reasserted. The Anglican International Mission Commissions have produced, during the last decades, excellent documents about the nature of the Church and of its Mission (MISAG I and II, MISSIO and IASCOME). All this material, elaborated over years of work seems to be disregarded in this conjuncture of conflict in the Communion.

3.3. In the current stage of the process, IEAB cannot commit itself to either the immediate adoption or refusal of the proposed Covenant. Thus, the question remains open for the Brazilian province. In addition, while we express in this statement positions formerly manifested with regards to the idea of an Anglican Communion Covenant, we have attempted to stick to what was expressly required for the consideration of IEAB: its assessment of the proposed draft of Section 4, which had not until now been the object of analysis in the province, in view of the date of its original publication. This document represents is our position on the referred section 4 and is not a final judgement on the whole of Ridley-Cambridge Draft, whose content largely reflects our province’s position.

3.4. We are convinced, according to the Anglican tradition experienced in Brazil, that any decision on the immediate adoption or rejection of the Covenant would be precipitated. The Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil has its own canonical procedures. Our process will require referring the matter to the General Synod (2010), the highest provincial instance gathering bishops, clergy and laypeople from all dioceses and missionary districts, recommending the appointment of a special inter-Synod commission that will study the text and monitor the developments regarding the Covenant within the Anglican Communion during the inter-Synod period, and will submit a report to the 2013 Synod, recommending the adoption or not of the Covenant, or a longer process of listening and observation.

3.5. We hope that even if the adoption process of Covenant begins as a result of the present consultation on Section 4 of the Ridley-Cambridge Draft, the provincial canonical procedures will be respected and that the promptness shown by some provinces to adopt it will not be used as an evidence of a supposed unwillingness or indecision of others to do so. This would be good Anglican practice and a sign that the process of formalisation and eventual adherence to the proposed Covenant will not be viewed by an implicit agenda to judge the depth of provincial commitment to the Communion or to the solution of the serious conflicts currently afflicting it.

3.6. We reaffirm, finally, our sincere and unequivocal Anglican identity, inherited from our forebears, and which we intend to pass on to the future generations, by praying the Collect for the Church Unity (IEAB Book of Common Prayer, p. 151):

Most holy Father, whose blessed Son before his passion prayed for the disciples that they may be one, as you and he are one; grant that your Church, united in love and obedience to You, may be united in one body by the one and only Spirit, that the world may believe in the one you have sent, your Son Jesus Christ, our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen.

Fr. Jake takes looks beneath the sheets. Strange bedfellows indeed!

Fr. Jake is on the case regarding the connections between conservatives in the US and various church leaders in Africa and Asia, and in particular regarding the connections between the realignment gang with amazing links to conservative religious organizations in the US and the Anglican Prelates from several nations in Africa, all part of the "Global South" cabal. Go, read it. Good stuff.

It is all about exporting homophobia, at least as far as Fr. Jake reads it. The operant part of that word homophobia is in this context phobia. The export of fear mongering is a tidy way of getting others to carry the message that Christianity and Family as we know it is about to crumble and that it is "those people" who are the cause of it all. If we just get rid of "them" then everything will be alright.

It works very well indeed. And Jake also reminds us of something I have spoken to as well, that its homophobia this week it is fear of Muslims next.

It is time to step up to the plate. If you fear homosexuals, then fear me. It's time to wear the pink triangle on an armband or patch. If you fear Muslims then fear me. It is time wear a crescent symbol on an armband or patch. It is also time for serious comedy, for laughing these people into submission may be the only way out. Otherwise the fear mongering crowd wins.

Go read Jake, then come back.

About the Ad in USA Today

An ad was taken out by the Communications Office of The Episcopal Church on Friday's USA Today, "weekend" edition. There have been a number of comments mostly suggesting the ad is verbose and kind of dull. Still, I'm glad to see "The Episcopal Church welcomes you" back in full use and glad to see something being done.

At the same time it is a joy to see that other more quirky and lively ads are also being experimented with. As usual Susan Russell has done a remarkable job getting to the bottom of this quirky creativeness and has contributed an ad of her own. Here it is, to the right.
















There is a challenge out to produce new and fresh ads that tell US as we are, and with joy. Here is the Ad-o-rama challenge. Take it or weep. Among the offerings already in place is this one to the left.

Now after those rather spirited efforts the ad from the Church Center seemed rather less useful. The problem I think is that it tries to do too much. The good news is that the Church Center is seeing the need to try to reach the unreached. Anne Rudig, Director of Communications, explained it this way "Our goal is to herald and share our message of "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You", and the copy delves into our identity, our core beliefs, and our heritage."

The operant words here are "The Episcopal Church Welcomes You" and "the copy delves..."

It is the "delving" that is the problematic here.

Here is the copy of the text from the USA Today ad. I have inserted comments in RED reflecting on the dangers of delving.The font is not produced here, but can be retrieved as a PDF file HERE. It is nicely proper.

THE TEXT

As Episcopalians, we are followers of Jesus Christ, our Lord, and believe in
the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

It would have been helpful to use perhaps a few more words here, as in "believe in One God, Father..." Not that that helps in some quarters, the doctrine of the Trinity being what it is, but at least we would be less open to the charge of worshiping three gods.

The Episcopal Church has members in the United States, as well as in Colombia,
the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Italy,
Switzerland, Haiti, Honduras, Micronesia, Puerto Rico, Taiwan, Venezuela,
and the Virgin Islands.

That is true, but we also have members, I suspect in almost every country in the world. It issue is not members. It is congregations and / or dioceses in those countries.

We strive to love our neighbors as ourselves and respect the dignity of every person.

The Episcopal Church is part of the worldwide Anglican Communion, and traces
its heritage to the beginnings of Christianity.

Our liturgy retains ancient structure and traditions, and is celebrated in
many languages.

We welcome men and women, married or celibate, to be ordained as bishops,
priests, and deacons.

This one is oddly phrased. The choice "married or celibate" is not correct. The choice is between in community or solitary, or something like that. Marriage, being part of a religious order, partnered, in a holy union, etc are all variations on community. Being "single" can be an accident or on purpose. I like the word "solitary" to describe a vocation to a life without the vows that accompany joining a community or being partnered. At any rate here it might have been better to leave out "married or celibate," and make it about "men and women" without further limitations.

We believe in amendment of life, the forgiveness of sin, and life everlasting.

Lay people exercise a vital role in the governance and ministry of our Church.

Holy Communion may be received by all baptized Christians, not only members
of the Episcopal Church.

We uphold the Bible and worship with the Book of Common Prayer.

Here "uphold the Bible" seems odd. "We are informed by the witness and words of the Holy Scriptures, the Bible...." might work better.

We affirm that committed relationships are lifelong and monogamous.

This is just plain silly. I have many committed relationships. In most there is no expectation that the commitment is lifelong and the relationship is exclusive. This one needs radical reworking or needs to be dropped altogether.

Episcopalians also recognize that there is grace after divorce and do not deny
the sacraments to those who have been divorced.

We affirm that issues such as birth control are matters of personal
informed conscience.

We celebrate our unity in Christ while honoring our differences, always putting
the work of love before uniformity of opinion.

This makes it sound as if we are more willing to put up with people who do injustice from a principled position than we are to take them to task for bad principles. Come to think of it perhaps we are.

All are welcome to find a spiritual home in the Episcopal Church.


All in all not a bad list. Needs some work. Informative without being too concentrated on theological or ecclesiastical niceties. Still, as I have said on other occasions, it might be nice to add in closing,

We live in hope that when you know us you will welcome us into your home, for where you live is also the spiritual home of the God whose blessings are on us all.