Moving on with Election of Bishops and the Anglican Communion

The House of Deputies received today the revised version of D025, "Commitment to Witness to Anglican Communion." It will be the primary piece of legislation on matters related to the Election of Bishops and the Anglican Communion from the World Mission legislative committee to the full house. It was the result of lots of work by the subcommittee of the Legislative Committee on World Mission, and a sub group of that given the task of actually writing up a proposed text. I was delighted to be on the working group and on the subcommittee on B033 matters and feel this text, based on that of Deputy Snow and others, rightly balances the engagement with the Anglican Communion, experience and understanding within The Episcopal Church and the actual situation of gay and lesbian persons in The Episcopal Church.

The issue tomorrow, (Sunday) when it will be brought to the House for debate and action is whether or not attempts to revise it will meet with appreciation or not. I am hoping the measure will pass without revision.

Here is the current form of the legislation:

Resolution:	D025
Title:	Commitment and Witness to Anglican Communion
Topic:	Anglican Communion
Committee:	08 - World Mission
House of Initial Action:	Deputies
Proposer:	Ms. D. Rebecca Snow

---

Resolved, the House of Bishops concurring, That this the 76th General Convention reaffirm the continued participation of The Episcopal Church in the Anglican Communion; give thanks for the work of the bishops at the Lambeth Conference of 2008; reaffirm the abiding commitment of The Episcopal Church to the fellowship of churches that constitute the Anglican Communion and seek to live into the highest degree of communion possible; and be it further

Resolved, That this the 76th General Convention encourage dioceses, parishes congregations, and members of The Episcopal Church to participate to the fullest extent possible in the many instruments, networks and relationships of the Anglican Communion, including but not limited to networks involving youth, women, and indigenous people; networks and ministries concerned with ecumenical and interfaith work, peace and justice, liturgy, environmental issues, health, and education; and companion diocese relationships; and be it further

Resolved, That this the 76th General Convention reaffirm its financial commitment to the Anglican Communion and pledge to maintain its full asking for participate fully in the Inter-Anglican Budget; and be it further

Resolved, That this the 76th General Convention affirm the value of "listening to the experience of homosexual persons," as called for by the Lambeth Conferences of 1978, 1988, and 1998, and acknowledge that through our own listening the General Convention has come to recognize that the baptized membership of The Episcopal Church includes same-sex couples living in lifelong committed relationships "characterized by fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God" (2000-D039); and be it further

Resolved, That this the 76th General Convention recognize that individuals gay and lesbian persons who are part of such relationships have responded to God's call and have exercised various ministries in and on behalf of God's One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church over the centuries and are currently doing so in our midst, often without the church's recognition of their lifelong committed relationships and the blessings bestowed by such relationships; and be it further

Resolved, That this the 76th General Convention affirm that God has called and may call such individuals, like any other baptized members, to any ordained ministry in The Episcopal Church, which call is tested in our polity through our discernment processes carried out under Canon IIIacting in accordance with the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church and the canons of its dioceses; and be it further

Resolved, That this the 76th General Convention acknowledge that, while the members of The Episcopal Church, like those in our sister Provinces as of the Anglican Communion, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, and in light of tradition and reason, are not all of one mind on this issue, and that Christians of good conscience, based on careful study of the Holy Scriptures, may disagree about this issue, the validity of the Church's sacraments comes from the action of the Holy Spirit in and through them, not from the frail humans celebrating them in God's name disagree about some of these matters.

Over on The Living Church there has been this post, "Resolution to Repeal B033 May Face Test in HOB."

Episcopal Cafe's "The Lead" has this:Walking back B033, revised resolution D025 clears committee"

The upshot of all this is that passage of D025 does not end caution and restraint expressed by any bishop or standing committee convinced by the arguments of the Anglican Covenant or the various pronouncements following the Windsor Report. What it does do is say that The Episcopal Church will not mandate such caution and restraint by legislative action.

The resolution also acknowledges the realities of life in a diverse community in which there are openly gay and lesbian couples, some with children, who participate fully in the life of the Christian community.

The resolution affirms the Anglican Communion, the ministry of the baptized, the openness to the process towards ordination, and the ministry of gay and lesbian persons.

It also acknowledges the fact that there are real and deep differences in the understanding of Scripture in the light of tradition and reason on this and other issues.

I hope that the resolution will be assented to with very few if any revisions.

The Living Church suggests that the resolution will be difficult for the House of Bishops. It may. But why? It does not say anything at all about B033 being right or wrong. It tells the truth about the realities of the church. It affirms the canonical process concerning ordination. It places matters of conscience in the hands of the electors and those confirming election, not placing outside restrictions on the exercise of conscience.

Some in the House of Bishops may believe that dropping B033 will be understood as an end to the moratorium and thus place our rightful place in the Anglican Communion in jeopardy.

The fear of being cast out of the Anglican Communion has been challenged by several visitors who came to the House of Deputies today, most importantly among them being Dean Jenney Te Paa, principal of Te Rau Kahikatea, College of St. John the Evangelist, Auckland, New Zealand.. Both believed we ought to have courage in our convictions and assured us that we have friends in the Global South and in the Anglican Communion. The ENS article on their visit is titled, "Anderson's international guests reflect on uniqueness of convention.' One of the speakers, the Rev. Luiz Alberto Barbosa, president of the House of Clergy and Laity of the Episcopal Anglican Church of Brazil said, "Any church can make a decision because of fear. Fear cannot be our counselor … don't be afraid of being excluded from the Anglican Communion because you are not alone. There are a lot of other provinces and people that support what you are doing."

My hope is that the House of Deputies takes heart and passes this legislation, and that the House of Bishops follows suit. It is time to let go of fear.

What's Going On?

It's hard to get a read on General Convention this year. Some years it is pretty clear what the issues will be and where the wreckage will be found. The fast lanes are sometimes clearly marked and the defining moments are sometimes known well in advance. Reading the tea leaves under such conditions is no problem. After all, we are professionals.

This time, however, I have consulted all the classic fortune tellers and they all report that the crystal ball is clouded. Maybe this is just a momentary problem, but we are three days into Convention and nothing, nada. There are not many newshounds about. There is little to report. Even the not too loyal opposition has little to do except to listen carefully for every crumb of heresy, fuzzy thinking, etc, in hopes of pouncing on "the story."

Some of the hearings are beginning to draw some interest. There are resolutions on beginning the process of development of rites for same sex blessing, or for using prayer book services for the blessing of civil marriages where there is a same sex couple. Hearings on them have been held.

The discussion of the resolution on B033 has widened and a special order for a committee of the has taken place. There was a good exercise late Thursday afternoon in the House of Deputies in which people who did not know each other talked one on one about how B033 impacted their lives and the life of the church.

Last night there was a hearing on the 16 resolutions on B033 with more than forty people testifying. The most remarkable thing was the voice of young people. Articulate, clear and well argued statements were read by eighteen year-olds. It was wonderful to hear.

I keep meeting heroines and heroes. Last night at the open hearing on "Episcopal Elections and the Anglican Communion" aka B033, the wondrous Ms. Kaeton gave me a photographed smooch.

At the Eucharist yesterday morning I finally caught up with the delegation from the Philippines and had a chance to worship with The Prime Bishop The Rt Revd Edward Pacyaya Malecdan and Attorney Floyd Lalwet.

Floyd gave an important summary of the history of the Episcopal Church in the Philippines at a luncheon meeting and Prime Bishop Malecdan gave an extraordinary gift to The Episcopal Church during the Eucharist on Wednesday. At that same service the Presiding Bishop preached on mission and used the example of The Episcopal Church in the Philippines as an example. Titus Pressler wrote on this on his blog, TitusonMission. See his remarks, HERE.

Interest in the B033 resolutions will grow today as deputies have opportunity to speak on the matter of whether or not to continue the moratoria on the ordination of bishops who are gay and in relationship. While there may be nuanced responses in terms of what is presented as resolutions on the matter, the fact is we will walk out of here with real decisions having been made. At this point it seems the House of Deputies will probably go for something that moves us beyond B033 and puts moratoria back in the hands of individual who on principle will not give consent and takes moratoria off the church wide table. But who knows? We will see.

Meanwhile the schedule is crushing and there is just too much to do and too little time. Hopefully things will become less hectic as the days go by. Sometime I hope to visit the Exhibition area for more than a quick bite to eat on the way to the next meeting.

Checking in with Jake and Susan and the usual suspects

Yesterday, Tuesday, was a full throttle day. The Houses would not meet until today, but the run up to the first day was life in the fast lane. Legislative Committees met all morning and all evening. The afternoon was taken up with a presentation on General Convention, an introduction to the Public Narrative Project and Deputies / Bishops orientation. There were two meetings of the Chicago Consultation folk, and a Program, Budget and Finance hearing.

Still, there was time to check in with a few friends:

To the right is my heroine/ myself. Susan Russell is an amazing person, clear, present and grounded all at once.

Walking down the hall yesterday, Fr. Jake himself walked up and gave me a Friends of Fr. Jake button. Terry looked great.


And best of all, yesterday I ran into the YouthPresence at General Convention. They were at the Program, Budget and Finance hearing on budget priorities.



Now under normal circumstances we would wonder just why anybody in their right mind would go listen to thirty or forty people make one minute statements on budget priorities, but these young people have been working at understanding how decisions are made at General Convention and were up for it. Hope it doesn't ruin their minds. They are very bright, energetic and full of promise. What they heard at PB&F if they listened carefully was that The Episcopal Church not only welcomes it cares deeply.
Having them around is a gift.

The World Mission legislative committee, on which I sit, got underway with its work. We are dealing with the 16 or so resolutions on B033, the infamous resolution of the past convention that called on bishops and standing committees to refrain from giving consent to the election of any bishop whose "manner of life" was a source of difficulty for the wider Communion. On Thursday and Friday there will likely be a committee of the whole in the House of Deputies to hear one another on concerns about B033 and future direction. There is a lot of work that goes into a presentation of this sort, and our subcommittee on B033 has its hands full. But the energy is good in the group and the willingness to work together is there.

More later.

General Convention, Anaheim - winding up for the pitch.

It's Monday, slow and delightfully pleasant here in Anaheim. Signing in this morning I ran into the "youth presence," i.e. a group of some 20 or so young people, quite a few friends and several bloggers, Nick Knisely in particular, President of the House Bonnie Anderson, and several 815 staff. It was too early to get a read of the pulse of things, but that will change quickly.

Episcopal News Service has conveniently spelled out one whole slice of concerns that will take a good bit of our time. The headline proclaims, "Discussion of human sexuality will again occupy debate at General Convention," and so it will. B033 and Anglican Covenant resolutions will be refereed to the World Mission legislative committee, to which I am assigned. It promises to be an energetic discussion.

There are, however, lots of things going on that seem dull by comparison but very very important to the life of the Church.

No one likes budget discussions, but how we treat the budget provides an interesting reflection on the character of our faith. Fiduciary responsibility takes on a different tone when it is the fiduciary responsibility of convinced Christians that is at stake. So there are questions of stepping out in faith, making use of our accumulated wealth, etc.

The matters of a medical plan for all church employees, a new and hopefully more useful set of disciplinary canons, and a whole range of program possibilities all have to be considered.

It is going to be very busy indeed starting tomorrow.

I'm hoping to be able to blog regularly, perhaps short takes with something longer in the evenings. We shall see.

Robert McNamara dies, Al Franken is Senator, FOCA UK bashes Church House.

Robert McNamara died today (July 6), Al Franken will be sworn in on Tuesday as Senator Frankin, and FOCA UK (The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans) is meeting today and is busy bashing liberal Anglicans in General, the CofE in particular, and talking about the devil roaming the halls of Church House. Of the three, only the third of these stories is no surprise.

I had forgotten that Robert McNamara was still alive, frankly, so his death was a surprise. I am surprised that Al Franken stuck it out and it will indeed happen that he will become Senator Franken. But I am not surprised that FOCA UK is hammering away at all things bright, beautiful, and visionary in Anglicanism.

Here are some choice quotes from Ruth Gledhill's blog article on FOCA UK.

" Greg Venables, primate of the Southern Cone, has just spelled out the issues at stake in the launch at Central Hall of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans. See our report today . 'In North America and here, true orthodoxy is being outlawed' warned Bishop Greg who has taken many congregations and even a diocese or two fleeing liberal episcopalianism under his conservative wing. 'We must remember we are not fighting flesh and blood. This is about principalities and powers.'"

Primate Greg Venables, who has had no problem disregarding the clear mandates of the Windsor Report and every subsequent variation concerning spitting in the soup of other jurisdictions than his own, has invoked the spiritual warfare call to arms.

"Orthodoxy proclaims one truth at a time when that is unacceptable in western culture,' said Bishop Greg. 'Truth has become relative. 'To believe in one truth which excludes others is to be intolerant, bigoted and dangerous.' He also said there was a 'false view of institutional loyalty.' 'And sadly there is a great fear of being marginalised and blackballed.'

And here the good bishop exhibits a level of crackpot analysis that wraps into one tidy sound bite all the wild claims of this gang: That this or that Anglican Church (The Episcopal Church, the Church of England, etc) has become relativistic, and that its inclusiveness leads to exclusion of those it considers intolerant, bigoted and dangerous, i.e. the so called "orthodox" who then fear being marginalized and blackballed.

Unwrapping this pot of messages and working through how toleration cuts both ways and how marginalization and blackballing can be carried out quite well by those holding minority opinions, etc., is a full time task. Right now I don't have the time or even the energy to untangle this garbage, except to say: "Nuts."

Ruth Gledhill then quotes Bishop John Broadhurst:

"John Broadhurst bishop of fulham is now on the platform, about to introduce Archbishop Bob Duncan. Broadhurst said he did not believe in the devil when he was first ordained. 'I now believe Satan is alive and well and he resides at Church House.'"

So now we get to the nub of the matter in CofE affairs: Satan has been seen wandering the halls of Church House. I wonder who he looks like? The janitor? The Archbishop of Canterbury? The whole lot of them?

In a larger article in the Times, "Bishop of Sherborne Graham Kings says new group could split Church," Ruth Gledhill refers to "Dr Robert Duncan, Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, the newly founded province that is claiming to be the authentic Anglican Church in the US but is awaiting recognition from the Archbishop of Canterbury, will give a keynote address to today’s meeting."

So the press seems willing to make the jump. The niceties of referring to Archbishop Duncan as "Dr Robert Duncan, Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America," following the formal mode of respectful English journalism reads oddly here in Anaheim. Here it would be simply "Archbishop Robert Duncan." But there you are.

More to the point, ACNA is referred to as "the newly founded province that is claiming to be the authentic Anglican Church in the US..." ACNA is not a province of anything. That's the point. It is a church, and Archbishop Duncan is its chief bishop. It is at this point not a part or province of anything. It is a church.

As a church I think we who write about it ought to respect the fact that in that church Robert Duncan, deposed bishop of Pittsburgh, former bishop of the Southern Cone, is now the Archbishop. We should call him what his church calls him. But he is not the Archbishop of a province of anything at all.

God forbid, but the time may come when in England there is the need to parse the titles carefully as well. Ruth Gledhill reported the following:

"The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, who will deliver the final address to more than 1,000 delegates from England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland at the conference, said that he believed the Church of England could split. Dr Nazir-Ali, who steps down in September but is ideally placed to become Archbishop of the fellowship should organisers wish to follow the American path, said the Church must not be “rolled over by culture”. He endorsed the biblical line against homosexuality."

Should such a day come it will be useful to remind folk that he be referred to as something like, "Archbishop Michael Nazir-Ali, of the Anglican Church of England, retired former bishop of Rochester." Who knows, if he were to do such a thing he might be more than retired. What does deposition look like in England? Read both of Gledhill's articles.

On her blog she has just posted a excellent photo, which ought to give pause: lined up together sitting in a pew are Bishop Nazir-Ali, Presiding Bishop Greg Venables, and Archbishop Duncan. They all seem...happy?...no Triumphant.

FOCA, UK, is meeting just as the General Convention is gearing up here in Anaheim. It means, I suspect, that Ruth will not be joining us here. If that is true I will be disappointed. On the other hand there is just so much of this mess that one can deal with at any given time. Our loss.

All Church is Local: Just a Reminder....

All Church is local. There it is. The reality is that The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion, the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of the Saints of the WestBoundBusses, every "Church" or ecclesiastical formation pales by comparison in its power, prestige, value and final victory over death compared to the congregation at prayer, in place, wherever that place may be.

Grounding in church then is always an affair of the body. It is incarnational. It is where you put yourself in place with others for Thanksgiving, Adoration, Prayer and Praise, being open to repentance and release, and on and on. But mostly it is the place where we offer and present ourselves, a reasonable, holy and living sacrifice.

I come together usually with others in the little town of Lewes, Delaware, a village on the edge of the bay where it meets the big waters. In the morning when I can I check in with the sun, and again in the evening, noting the seasons and the times.


And on Sundays, and sometimes Wednesdays, and in odd still moments during the week I find myself at St. Peter's Episcopal Church, and I sit in a pew, or in a clergy seat near the altar, and it is CHURCH. All church is local, and most of my locality is there and in that place. It is CHURCH defined and incarnate, and no high uppity big audacious and even elegant place not local is church.

In answer to the question, "Do you believe in the Church?" I suppose the answer is, "Believe in it? Hell, I go to one!" All Church is local. Here is my local church most of the time.

Now, however, I am at General Convention where with some 1000 other lay people, clergy and bishops we constitute the legislature of The Episcopal Church. General Convention is an odd sort of gathering, part legislature, part educational and inspirational event, part tribal gathering, part focus for energies - joyful and angry, good and bad - that have arisen from experiences of church elsewhere. Everyone brings a bit of their local church with them to this ten to twelve day meeting. There are lots of agendas, not all easy to fulfill or pleasant to behold. But we are here, along with hundreds more who are drawn here by the light, or smoke, or cloud.

The thing is, while we are here, and when we gather for prayer and praise, for struggle and delight, we are church here. For those of us at General Convention, this is church. All church is local and oddly and strangely, our meeting at General Convention becomes church. It is a short lived experience, and perhaps we can be forgiven if, in trying to cram so much into so little time, the experience of church seems grand, sometimes glorious and sometimes silly. It's a big church gathering, but it is after all local to those of us there. It is where we go to church.

In all the run up to General Convention, with the reporters and the prophets on hand to tell us just what strange, wonderful, or awful things are going to transpire, there is little mention of what seems to be a well kept secret: It is just Church. Nothing you can't find in your own church. I find that assuring.

In a way it is like the assurance that comes with the Book of Common Prayer and the burial office. The deal is, the Queen gets more music, bigger choir, more processions, greater thunder, etc, at her funeral than I do at mine. But we get buried with more or less the same words and are commended to God with the same finality. It is, after all, church, and all church is local.

What we do at General Convention has effect on what we do in our local parishes and what the whole Church does in its witness, but what we are at General Convention is no different than what we are werever there is church. And we will learn to pass the peace and share Eucharist with the same range of peculiar people we find wherever two are three are gathered, even if in this case there are two or three thousand gathered.

A Missionary Stimulus Relief Package

The Episcopal Church has announced the possibility that there will be a 9 Million Dollar shortfall in expected revenues for the Triennial budget (2010-2012) for The Episcopal Church. Reports on this can be found HERE and HERE.

Pan Adams-McCaslin, chairwoman of The Joint Committee on Program, Budget and Finance, is quoted by The Living Church as saying, “We are going in as educated as possible about the draft budget that was approved by Executive Council, as educated as possible about the proposed resolutions with funding implications—both revenue-specific and those with funding implied—in order that PB&F can listen to the convention and the Holy Spirit so that the mission of the church is fulfilled and not political agendas.” That's a tall order, but it can be done.

A Proposal: It is time to mount a campaign for a "Missionary Stimulus Relief Package: $21 Million for the Triennium."

Background: Implications of the deficit if it were to go forward:

The annual budget projections for the three years of the Triennium are currently listed as:
$53,619,754; $52,995,246; $55,205,613 for a total of $161,820,613. (p. 11, Draft Budget) Now a reduction of 3 million a year would make these figures roughly 50, 49 and 52 million dollars. The reductions would be roughly 6%. Using a scarcity model, in which we work from the existing budget income and expenditures, we could and very well might work at belt-tightening and reduction in services. Six percent seems manageable. The problem with this is twofold:

(i) There are non-reducible expenses for the canonically required offices of the Presiding Bishop, the General Convention. This means that the 6% shortfall, if it happens, will be disproportionally relegated to the program and mission budgets. This means the shortfall in program and mission may be as high as 10-12 percent. This ends up pitting worthwhile and arguably necessary new initiatives in mission against one another. This model of scarcity planning leads to program depletion rather than strategic thinking.

(ii) The decrease in available monies in the US due to reduced returns on investments, hold backs by dioceses due to prudent allocation of resources, and reduction in funding from unhappy, anxious or confused donors, as well as general disease about the program of the Episcopal Church as expressed in the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society (DFMS) budget. At a time when the DFMS could be challenging the church to greater giving because of greater missionary need, the budget planning appears to be one guided by staff concerns to "balance" the various existing efforts in a model that involves internal struggle. For example the staff was asked to envision a 50 percent reduction in funding and imagine how they might respond. This thinking may be prudent, but it is not strategic.

The projected deficit will lead to funding decisions based on a model of scarcity. That model is inadequate to the economic, social and religious demands of the times.

Missionary Stimulus Relief

This is exactly the time to ask the General Convention to direct the assignment of $21 million from the abundance of invested funds, as well as interest from those funds, for a Missionary Stimulus Relief Package.

Does such an abundance exist? Yes. In the current budget $28,928,713 is being drawn from investment income. That represents a 5.5% distribution from investments, where the assumed gross annual growth is placed at 8%. As I understand it the fiduciary model is to use less than the projected income from investments thereby increasing the endowment. the proposal of an additional $21 million from investments increases the expenditures from investments to a point where it will impact the body of invested monies. The total drawn from invested income would approach $50 million over three years, or about $16 million per year, up from roughly $9.7 million per year. Assuming an 8% annual growth this would mean some incursion into invested monies that include accumulated investments from the past.

But that accumulation represents an abundance, not a scarcity. It was meant to be used as needed for the ministry and mission of the Church. And, in time of great need it seems prudent to draw on this capital.

The Missionary Stimulus Package:

The purpose of this relief package is four fold: (numbers are for a three year period)

(i) To complete the funding of the budget proposed by Program, Budget and Finance to the General Convention, recognizing that the final form of that budget may include some reductions and some additions to the draft budget distributed to Bishops and Deputies ($9 million) ;

(ii) To expand the allocation of funds to diocese in stress, dioceses of The Episcopal Church receiving assistance, and in particular those overseas dioceses whose local currencies suffer disproportionately from the economic stresses in the world recession ($4 million),

(iii) To extend to those Provinces in which we are in covenant relationships additional financial relief so that they may maintain their ministries in uncertain economic times, ($3 million) and

(iv) to fund new mission initiatives on a diocesan and national level the purpose of which is related to parish and diocesan revitalization and growth ($5 million).

The Challenge:

The Episcopal Church is challenged on many fronts. If we simply accept the shortfall of $9 million as indicative of the need to reduce ministry, services, support and expansion activities, we will have wasted a perfectly good challenge to our common life. This is not the time to exercise great caution or to be fearful. This is a time to be forthright and clear that we are willing to support our churches in need, fund the programs that support diocesan and local ministry and are ready to expand support for new opportunities in mission.

It is time to engaged in missionary expansion and aid to those churches in need. Now.

Remembering the Costs of War on July 4th.

It is too easy to take the lead from the news feeds: Michal Jackson's death and Sarah Palin's announcement that she is resigning as governor of Alaska are big news. The continuing bleed down in Iraq and Afghanistan is no news at all. US and allied military deaths in these two wars are low enough and common enough not to draw much attention. They are now background noise, not foreground news. We can conveniently wave the flag and watch the fireworks without much thought for the returning caskets, the draped flags and the bursting of real bombs in real war.

As of this 4th of July 4,321 American service personnel and 318 other allied personnel have died in Iraq - 4,639 in all. In Afghanistan 719 US personnel have been killed, and 488 other allied personnel, for a total of 1,207.

These two wars have now cost 5,040 American lives. The number of US wounded in Iraq stands at over 31,368, in Afghanistan 3,023. Total wounded over 34,391.

One way or another more about 40,000 Americans have been killed or wounded. And there is hardly a whisper of our discontent.

The Anglican Covenant Pledge-O-Meter

In honor of the 4th of July, I am pleased to offer the Preludium Anglican Communion Pledge- O- Meter (PACPOM) by which we can determine the extent to which we as the Episcopal Church are autonomous and to what extent we are pledged to one another in interdependence. With this handy - dandy meter we can perhaps better understand just why the Anglican Covenant is not a good idea and why it is not terrible either.

The PACPOM is based on the final words of the Declaration of Independence, in which the signers stated the level of their commitment to the Declaration. They stated that for the support of this Declaration:

"we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

The PACPOM then is a way of testing the various sections of the Anglican Covenant against the high bar of the signers of the Declaration of Independence: the pledge of "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." This is the LFH pledge. The Meter registers the level to which various sections of the Anglican Covenant meet the LFH pledge.

Those sections that get a high LFH rating are the sorts of things we could imagine reciting, almost as a pledge of allegiance. Those that get low LFH ratings are the sorts of things we consider part of the specific ways we exercise our faithfulness with one another, but do not consider essential to the faith. In other words, we live within the baptized life and share communion, we recite the Creeds and read the scriptures. We would never, in its totality recite this Anglican Covenant or learn, mark or inwardly digest it as we might the primary pledges we make.

Section 1 of the Anglican Covenant: "Our Inheritance of Faith" - This is essentially the content of the Lambeth Quadrilateral with two additions (The Lambeth Sextet?). This is the "Stuff" of faith and gets high marks on the PACPOM meter. It is the stuff to which we pledge ourselves as Christians. The affirmations are core. The specific program of commitments that follow are, if viewed generously, fine. Not understood generously, they are less worthy of our pledge of LFH.

The PACPOM for Section 1:


Section 2 concerns the missional implications of Section one. "The Life We Share with Others: Our Anglican Vocation" affirms Mission as God's Mission and points us to the "Five Marks of Mission" as a guide. As a missionary church The Episcopal Church stands fully in commitment to the spirit of this section. This gets high LFH marks on the PACPOM.

The PACPOM for Section 2:


Section 3 concerns "Our Unity and Common Life." It moves from affirmations of our common life in the Anglican Communion, through an affirmation of episcopal leadership, and then to the specifics of the instruments of communion that grow from episcopal leadership in a communion of churches. It concludes with an observation of the mutual interdependence of the instruments, and the autonomy of any one to initiate or commend direction for the Communion. Section 3 gets only modest LFH marks. The belief that episcopal leadership is central is not directly tied to the specifics of how they make decisions in concert with the whole body of Christians within the Communion.

The PACPOM for Section 3:



Section 4 is titled, "Our Covenanted Life Together," spells out the expectations of life together as understood in Section 3, with direction being supplied by the instruments of unity and the constraints of caution, consensus and the mind of the church being employed. It is the least "pledge" like of the sections and the least like a covenant. Rather it is a set of statements setting out how one joins, conforms to, is expelled from or leaves the Anglican Communion. While it may be an important document, it does not rise to the level of a pledge at all. Rather it represents "standing orders" regarding membership. It gets very low LFH marks.

The PACPOM for Section 4


The PACPOM clearly indicates that as the Anglican Covenant proceeds, from first principles to procedural directives, it moves from high pledge and investment of lives, fortunes and honor, to low investment. The Anglican Covenant is not a single whole, but rather a mish-mash of matters central to the faith we have as Christians and matters of secondary importance.

But the Covenant makes no distinction between the pledges to the first and the pledges to the last. The first concerns our being Christian and committed to the Church having internal oversight in the form of bishops. The second concerns our being members of the Anglican Communion and committed to specific forms of that oversight.

Better we have an Anglican Covenant concerning primary life together, and an Anglican Communion set of procedures for membership, support, obedience, etc.

There seems, however, to be a desire to hang the procedural matters on the back of the Christian believer. The insistence that we consider the Anglican Covenant as a single whole may sink the whole thing. If so, so be it. It would only mean that the instruments of unity might have to initiate their own procedures for membership and leave it at that.

The Pledge-O-Meter makes it clear, at least to me: I am willing to stake my life, fortune and honor on Jesus Christ. I am willing to give my all for others in following the Lord Jesus Christ. I am not willing to do so for the demands for unity as determined by the Instruments of Unity.

Now, explain to me again why the Anglican Covenant does not end at Section 3:1?

The General Convention Pot is being stirred and shaken.

It's the lead up to General Convention, which begins next week. The plot thickens, the pot boils, things are shaken and stirred:

(i) President of the House of Deputies Bonnie Anderson is suggesting that Dispatch of Business may propose a special order so that the House of Deputies can meet as a Committee of the Whole to discuss matters pertaining to the restrictions and admonitions placed on Bishops and Standing Committees by B033 passed on the last day of General Convention 2006. Hopefully if this takes place it will be a forward looking discussion rather than a blame game muttering. It is time to move on and this special order might provide the means to do so. See the announcement on this HERE.

(ii) The challenge to the budget and to The Joint Committee on Program, Budget and Finance will come to a head and the sensibilities of scarcity and abundance will be at the center of the discussion of what to do when the funds are down. See article HERE.

(iii) A study on world mission has been produced and is available HERE. It will challenge the Convention to look again at the world mission priorities of The Episcopal Church. This study is informative of the current state of affairs in how funds and staff time are used. It does not propose a specific future direction, but provides information for any who are interested in future planning.

(iv) A group of bishops are offering a resolution which would allow for the use of the Prayer Book service for the blessing of a civil marriage in the case of civil marriage between persons of the same sex. See HERE.

(v) There is a concerted effort to get a line item back in the budget for the Millennium
Development Goals. At issue here is posting a specific amount for this effort in a public way. See HERE.

(vi) There is a proposal on Communications efforts of The Episcopal Church that is meant to counter the proposal by Church Center Staff in Communications to redirect the energies and monies for communications in new ways. The Board of Governors of Episcopal Life Media will propose two resolutions on furthering the work of Communications. See HERE.

(vii) It appears that the Daughters of the King are in the midst of a challenge to reorder their membership qualifications. The Daughters of the King are both an Episcopal Church organization and at the same time larger, including on some level persons from other Churches. Working out this membership matter is seen by some in the organization as a microcosm of the struggles faced in the Church these days. See HERE. and HERE.

Much of this stirring is in relation to the proposed budget, the programmatic offerings of the Church Center staff, and the resolutions coming out of various Committees, Commissions, Board and Agencies. Some of it arises out of these particular times in the Anglican Communion and The Episcopal Church.

It is a feisty time, but it seems to me deputies and bishops are better informed prior to General Convention than in past years and are coming with more creative ideas.

It promises to be a fine Convention, particularly if we keep our life together in prayer, with openness to what the Spirit might be offering. We shall see.

Undisclosed Panel disclosed. Doors are opened.

The Theology Committee of the House of Bishops, which exists for the whole church as a source of theological reflection and came into being as a result of a General Convention resolution, has formed a sub-committee on same-sex relations. Curiosity concerning the names of the members of that committee was not met with a satisfying response from the chair of that committee, Bishop Henry Parsley, who declined to reveal the names. Sensing a possible slide into yet another conversation in which GLBT people were talked about, not with, curiosity got the cat.

Now it appears that Lisa Fox has eaten much of the cat, satisfied the curious, more or less, and has found the names of eight of the ten members of the committee. See her blog entry HERE. Episcopal Cafe also posts this revelation HERE. Names are listed in both places.

I don't see what need there was for keeping the names out of the public view. But there it was, and here it is.

Using the House of Deputies as a Committee of the Whole.

The President of the House of Deputies has sent out a letter to all Deputies and First Alternates concerning the debate on concerns about B033 - the resolution from General Convention 2006 that stated,

"Resolved, That the 75th General Convention receive and embrace The Windsor Report’s invitation to engage in a process of healing and reconciliation; and be it further

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

She has proposed that the House of Deputies meet as a Committee of the Whole to discuss B033 and ways to respond to it. Here is her letter dated June 29th:

Dear Deputies and First Alternates,

With just a few days left before we gather together in Anaheim for the 76th General Convention, I want to inform you of a procedure available to the House of Deputies that we will propose to use to have a discussion, not debate, regarding resolution B033 that was concurred at the 75th General Convention. We will have this discussion in the context of a “Committee of the Whole”. The purpose of this discussion will be to exchange information and viewpoints among the deputies, and to inform Legislative Committee #8 World Mission, to which committee all the resolutions relative to B033 have been assigned.

What it is:
Committee of the Whole is a parliamentary process that enables a legislative body such as the House of Deputies, to discuss a topic in an orderly manner, without debate or taking a final action on a resolution on the matter. It is used primarily when a deliberative assembly wishes to have a discussion on a particular topic.

How it will happen:
The Legislative Committee on Dispatch of Business will present a special order of business to the HOD in the same manner all special orders are presented. The HOD will review the procedure presented by Dispatch and the House will vote whether or not to use or to amend the Committee of the Whole procedure as proposed.

When it will happen:
During the legislative session on Wednesday, July 8, Dispatch will present the special order for consideration by the HOD.

If the special order is adopted, on Thursday afternoon, July 9, the HOD will meet for one hour in the first session of the Committee of the Whole during the regularly scheduled legislative time; and on Friday morning, July 10, the second session of the Committee of the Whole will meet for one hour during the regularly scheduled legislative session.

It is my belief that the House of Deputies will benefit by having an opportunity to discuss B033 apart from the context of legislative procedure. Many deputies have indicated their longing to discuss B033 together as a House. The HOD Legislative Committee on World Mission (#8) has indicated their work will be aided by this conversation in the HOD prior to the committee’s open hearing on the topic.

I look forward to our work, prayer and deepening relationship.

Please join me in daily thanksgiving for our ministry together, as it is and as it is yet to become. Please join me daily in asking the Holy Spirit to be present with us in all our deliberations, celebrations and conversations.

Peace,

Bonnie Anderson, D.D.
President, The House of Deputies

I believe that this is a creative and very useful way for the House of Deputies to enter the discussion on the issues surrounding B033 and the concerns to continue, amend, recend or move beyond the "call" upon Bishops and Standing Committees.

I hope those who have wished that the concerns would be dealt with immediately on the first day and those who wished that it would be reaffirmed in a general affirmation of the Anglican Covenant will find this a reasonable way to engage the whole house in a conversation.

In the engagement in the Committee of the Whole my hope is that we will not get bogged down in a blame production analyzing the events that led to the passage of B033. Rather, I hope we will look forward, trying to find the way to express where we are now and where we hope to go as a Church.

There are several persons whose mantra is constantly that TEC scrap B033, thereby proving that we are indeed different from everyone else in the Communion and indifferent to their concerns. These are the people who hope for our honesty so that it leads to wreckage. But what if we instead hold the whole Communion to a vetting of bishop candidates that is as open to critical examination as is our own? Our canons provide for a wide range of critical examination of candidates, a range that can at times become harshly applied. But we stick by the proposition that somehow a sort of jury of peers - bishops, clergy and lay - can with some wisdom and grace augment the election by a diocese by giving or withholding consent.

We have all we need to do this in the existing canons. The concern that we make such judgments in the light of how that will play in the rest of the Communion is certainly there. At the same time it is abundantly clear that some portion of the rest of the Communion no longer trusts our judgement about elections within our own Church.

My hope is that we will indeed have that open discussion as a Committee of the Whole and that that will feed in to the deliberations of the Legislative Committee on World Mission, and result in resolutions that set the decisions to be made in terms that are forward looking and mission oriented.

Thanks to President Anderson for this creative move.

The Pros and Cons on the Anglican Covenant: From Episcopal Life Online

There are two essays on Episcopal Life Online that are worth the read, giving opposing views on the value and use of the Anglican Covenant.

"Consider facts about proposed covenant, not myths" by James Stockton, rector of the Episcopal Church of the Resurrection, Austin, Texas, takes the "con" side.

"Covenant aligns with Episcopal identity." by Bruce Robison, rector of St. Andrew's Episcopal Church, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, takes the "pro" side.

Read them both. Bruce Robison is also co-signer of D020, which proposes that General Convention indicate its adherence to the spirit of the Covenant while its final form is being perfected and until we formally vote on it at a future Convention.

Badges? Badges? We don't need no stinkin' badges! (Revision 1)

OK, I will admit that in part I am posting this note IN ORDER to use a favorite cut from Blazing Saddles. Still, perhaps there is some modest value in thinking about badges. At General Convention Deputies and Bishops, visitors and exhibitors, and a whole host of others will get a badge, looking something like this (on right).

Eagle-eyed volunteers will watch the entry ways to the floor of the House of Deputies and House of Bishops to make sure that only people with the right sort of badge get in. Interestingly they are informative to legislative concerns - identifying who can be on the floor, who has access to what area, etc. But these are badges that check us in. Nothing on these badges says anything about contact information, health concerns, medical or other information. The badge identifies our role at the Convention. In the House of Bishops the badge makes it possible spot the elect without reference to the color of their clerical shirt. In the House of Deputies, the badge affirms that we are deputies. So I suppose these are deputies badges. Thus the clip from Blazing Saddles. Here it is.



OK. Recovered?

Christopher P was kind enough to let me know that I'm not up on matters in film land, that the phrase came first from The Treasure of the Sierra Madre. Unless someone knows an earlier utterance, Here is the first use of the phrase, "We don't need no stinking badges!" Not as funny as Blazing Saddles, but purer.





Now that we've done comic and comic relief, on to the stinkin' issue:

Now here is a question about the Anglican Covenant and the matter of badges. What sort of a badge is the Anglican Covenant and who might be given it, or wear it?

We know about the badge of baptism - the outward and visible sign of THE inward and spiritual grace of inclusion in the death and Resurrection of Our Lord. We know about the badge of communion - they will know us by the love we have for Our Lord and one another in this meal. We can think of the scriptures read as a badge of fidelity to God's Word (which is outwardly and visibly signed in the writings, but inwardly and spiritually ingested in our incorporation in Christ Jesus.) Some might see the creeds said as a badge of orthodoxy, or a growing need to more carefully define orthodoxy.

But there is kind of a creep...Baptism and Eucharist are clear, Scripture still pretty clear. The Creeds are less immediately clear as badges, but then the creep begins in earnest. The Thirty Nine Articles is moving away from a universal badge of our being deputised as Christians. The Lambeth Quadrilateral, unknown to most Episcopalians until recently, is even further away. And now there is this think called an Anglican Covenant. What sort of a badge is it? Is it in any way an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace? That is, does it share in any way in the sacramental deputising of us as Christ's body in the world?

Maybe the search for new and improved badges is wrongheaded. We have the badge and sign of our Christian life: We are washed, we are resurrected, we eat, we drink, we are informed by Scripture, we seek God's reign wherever we can and hope for its fullness. It is hard to imagine just what the Anglican Covenant can add to that. Of course it is argued that the Covenant is there to tell us we legitimately carry the "Anglican" badge, and that we are deputized to be Anglicans. But of course no one out there in the regular world of Christ's followers cares a wit whether or not we are Anglicans. Anglican Churches do, bishops do, even sometimes parishes do. But it is mostly the authorities that care.

Authorities are everywhere, of course. The Anglican Church in North America has some, The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada and The Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) and the Province of the Southern Cone, and on and on, have Authorities, and THEY care.

So the badge is about getting on to the floor of their decision making bodies. That is indeed important to have is that is where you are called to go. But for most of us, most of the time, we go where no badges are needed, because we go where we are mostly among friends.

At that level the badge that is most useful is the one that a local church wears: the rainbow badge, or an inclusion symbol, a sign of the inward grace of the community that is home and hope. It says, no badges here. "Badges? Badges? we don't need no stinkin' badges!"

So let's remember one badge gets us into General Convention, another (the Covenant) might get us onto the floor of the Anglican Consultative Council, or Lambeth Conference, or maybe an ecumenical meeting. But the badge that gets us in to people's lives, and indeed into our own deepest living, is the badge of our inclusion in the household of God. And that badge is mostly worn by Jesus Christ.

I cannot imagine a time when the Anglican Covenant would creep back out of the world of Administration and become in any way a sacramental badge indicating an inward and spiritual grace. It just doesn't work.

So the Anglican Covenant is no one's business except those whose business it is to exclude and include in business. If we get this badge we get to play out our ministry in a particular context, and there is real value to that context, but we need to be clear that although the Covenant lists all those others signs and badges, some of which are central to our Christian faith, that does not make the Covenant central.

By the time the Covenant gets to part 4 it has crept a long way from Baptism and Eucharist. By then it is a meal best eaten by the Administrators.

In the film those are the guys at the table, passing out the badges.

It gets messy out there in Anglican-Land and in Malawi

The mess of having the Anglican Church in North America as a church recognized as an "Anglican Province" by some of the Provinces of the Anglican Communion while there is at the same time a Church - The Episcopal Church - that is officially a member of the Anglican Communion but out of communion in a practical sense with several of the Provinces that recognize ACNA, is quickly becoming apparent.

The Diocese of Northern Malawi has decided to elect a new bishop. According to the blog, "Not the Same Stream," there is an impending clash around the election due in large part to the nomination of someone who is presently part of ACNA. Here is a longish excerpt from that post:

"... in the recently vacated Diocese of North Malawi clergy have been told by the bishops that they are to nominate one candidate only from amongst their own number for elections for a new bishop. The outgoing bishop Christopher Boyle, is shortly to take up a new position advising on immigration issues in the Diocese of Leicester, U.K.

However, a nomination to succeed him in the person of Fr Scott Wilson of All Saints Episcopal Parish, Weatherford, Texas has been made. Wilson who has led mission teams in South Africa and a Cursillo programme in Malawi was the ‘runner up’ to Bishop Boyle in 2001.

Unfortunately, since then Fr Scott Wilson’s parish, under his oversight, has joined a breakaway movement splitting off from the American Episcopal Church. As part of the former Diocese of Fort Worth his parish is now a member of the Common Cause Partnership – Federation of Anglican Christians in North America (A.C.N.A).

The status of this schismatic grouping is not certain and it is unclear whether it is in communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury. Certainly A.C.N.A. bishops were excluded from last year’s Lambeth Conference and the movement continues as a source of disruption within the Anglican Communion.

The Anglican Central African Province has never been associated with the schismatic North Americans despite efforts on the part of former Archbishop Bernard Malango to persuade it to break with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

With allegiance to such a body, should Wilson be elected it would cause some significant tensions between the bishops within an already troubled Province. Bishop James Tengatenga of Southern Malawi has just been elected to a major position in the Anglican Communion as Chair of the Anglican Consultative Council. This is one of the four ‘Instruments of the Anglican Communion’ and is a focus of world Anglicanism.

Nevertheless, such is the ferocity of the current struggles it too has been heavily criticised by the breakaway Americans and Tengatenga accused of being ‘open to manipulation’. Additionally, it is difficult to see Wilson working in the Province with the likes of the Rev’d Dr Chad Gandiya the recently elected Bishop of Harare, Zimbabwe, who has also been criticised by the Common Cause Partnership for his ‘liberalism’. Finally, what kind of relationship Scott Wilson would have with Bishop Trevor Mwamba of Botswana is unknown? Wilson’s new grouping has hysterically criticised Mwamba for being willing to associate with the American Episcopal Church and for suggesting that Africa might have other more pressing problems than those of religious infighting in the United States.

...There is now potential for a divisive and schismatic scenario in Northern Malawi with the danger of an issue-based regime quite unlike the present. How the bishops of Central Africa respond to Wilson’s candidature will have the potential to affirm or destroy the Province’s status as a bona fide member of the Anglican Communion.

All eyes will be on what used to be an almost unknown part of the Communion but which over the past few years has become something of a bellwether if not a ‘basket case’. What the poor carpenter of Nazareth, in whose name this all takes place, would make of it all is anyone’s guess but he was rarely uncritical of those who misused their positions of authority."

So there is something of a test case here. By the time it all comes to a head, Fr. Wilson may well be, in addition to his other credentials, a priest deposed by the church that ordained him. Long standing norms suggests that churches in communion with one another honor such depositions. Of course these are not normal times and who knows? But the deposition may be an additional impediment. So Wilson is from a church not in communion with Canterbury, not a member of the Anglican Communion, not from the diocese and in the process of being deposed.

And on the far side, not knowing the workings of the church in Malawi except by way of the thoughts of a missionary who gave many years of his life to Malawi and from what I read in the Church press, I wonder just what is going on. Why is a diocese in Malawi not able to find suitable clergy from within the Province, much less the diocese?

This thing is a mess - a mess for the diocese, a mess for the province, for the Anglican Communion.

Marriage and all that. Glad Grover didn't talk about, you know, intercourse.

Actually, this wonderful bit from Sesame Street is all about intercourse... you know, hugging and kissing and hanging out together and helping each other. It is about social intercourse. Marriage is a form of social intercourse. Sexual intercourse is another matter. Love and marriage go together like a horse and carriage. Sex goes with almost everything it appears, but not everything goes better with Sex (or Coke) and is not to be confused with love.

Thanks to the Friends of Jake for putting this up on their blog. Somehow it makes things simpler, yes?



OK, I know, no, not simpler, but perhaps it is a reminder. "There's a lot in a marriage."

Excellent post on Changing Attitude

OK... Go there and read it. Here: Why are Church of England bishops betraying the Communion?

One snippet:

What puzzles me is, how do the rest of the House of Bishops tolerate such dissent? Changing Attitude would like to know why English bishops and senior lay people are prepared to support groups which treat LGBT people and women as inferior third class citizens at best. At worst, they don't believe gay people exist and advocate prejudice and intolerance.

To that I might add, these people are paid employees of the State Church, and one might think that they would be bound to uphold something like the standards of the State. Does the UK "treat LGBT people and women as inferior third class citizens at best"? If so shame on the UK. If not shame on the CofE.

Read the article.

Oh to be in England now that Synod's there!

Preludium occupies much of its time in matters pertaining to The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion and the mess and dust-up that accompanies people leaving, changing the keys, trying to take the name and co-opt the name Anglican. But occasionally something catches my eye concerning ordinary life in other parts of the Communion. Simon Sarmiento over on Thinking Anglicans has posted a variety of papers related to the upcoming Synod of the Church of England. I thought I'd point US and other readers to several of those that seem to me particularly interesting.

Taking them in turn,

GS 1733A Episcopal and Senior Church Posts: A note from the Diocese of Bradford

The upshot on this the thought that the church might look more carefully at the matter of its top heavy ecclesiastical system. Now there is a good idea!

GS 1742 Ecclesiastical Judges, Legal Officers and Others (Fees) Order 2009

This one is worth the read so that we can appreciate just how wonderful it is not to be a state church, or one ordered with set fees for all sorts of activities. I was particularly interested in the fee attached to the application to become licensed as a priest in the UK. On the other hand when you need a lawyer it seems a lot cheaper there than here.

GS 1743 Parochial Fees Order 2009 [Monday]

Here they are - the stole fees for all sorts of things clergy do. One good note: burial of a child under one year or stillborn - free. The fees issue is alive and well here in the US as well, but not neatly handled as in the UK. For many, given a reasonable salary anyway, it seems inappropriate to charge anything for any service, but accept support of the Rector's discretionary fund or he parish coffers.

GS 1744 Being Adult about Childhood: A Consideration of the Good Childhood Inquiry
accompanying pamphlet: Children’s Evidence

This is really good stuff. I hope this can be transmogrified to somehow be of use here. I particularly like the reference to William Temple's thoughts on the matter of childhood.

GS 1747B Clergy Discipline Measure: A note from the Clergy Discipline Commission

This note raises a problem that happens in both our churches - Bishops get caught being both pastors to their clergy and administers of the system of justice and judgment. The bind is awful.

Background Papers

GS Misc 921 Engaging with Europe

Just a note: This paper points to the quite different way that the CofE needs to consider its work in Europe, its connection with the European Union, etc, from the way our much smaller Convocation of Churches in Europe might consider the connections. TEC would, I suspect, have little interest in being represented in EU circles for its own benefit. This may in part be simply because of the reality that we are not, after all, a European church. We have in TEC European congregations, but the church is focused for the most part on this side of the ocean. The Convocation may be engaged, and one hopes so, but the agenda of TEC carries little reference to that engagement. Then again this paper does not say anything about relation to the other Anglican agencies in Europe - the Churches in Spain, Portugal and the Convocation of American Churches in Europe.

On the whole I found the papers I read interesting and informative and highly suggestive of the very real differences between the life of a church that is the State Church and (in the case of TEC) a church that has no such mandate.

Take a look for yourselves.

Delaware bill providing legal protection against discrimination passes

So on other fronts, while Archbishop - elect Duncan was becoming ACNA Archbishop Duncan, some of us in his former state and diocese of residence were working away at the State House in Dover to get legislation passed to provide legal protection against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It took 13 - that's 13 - years to get sexual orientation added to the list of classes of people who are protected from discrimination.

Drew Fennell, a wonderful and good friend, worked with Senator David Sokola to manage the floor debate. Representatives William Oberle, Jr. and Pete Schwartzkopf did the heavy lifting in the House.

I became part of the doings on this bill when it was House Bill 99, about 10 years ago. I testified then on the House floor. Yesterday, I was back and this time was called on to speak to the Senate where the debate went on for some time. Senate Bill 121 passed there and was sent immediately over to the House where it passed as well. It now goes to the Governor for signing.

It was a great day for GLBT folk, friends, and indeed for all regular paid up citizens in Delaware where at long last the reality of discrimination and its remedies are recognized. But the struggle continues. I was appalled to see the level of homophobia, prejudice and down right meanness there was in the proceedings.

An attorney for those opposed to this bill used an outrageous illustration of the way this bill might be used in support of gay marriage. He said, if you take a can of white paint and one of red paint and you mix them you get pink, and similarly if you take already clear law and add this new bill, you get a mixed future where the color will be changed. I don't know if this attorney had any idea what he was saying, but for me there were suddenly the images of the pink triangle used to mark / brand homosexuals in Nazi Germany. And, in Delaware, not noted for its racial inclusively, mention of color is always up for under the radar secondary meaning concerning race. Without saying a word on the surface the speaker was able to help the hearer make the leap from legal opportunism and possible confusions to the "pink" of homosexual branding to the dangers of mixed race / color.

Thus, later in arguments about how this bill would make it necessary to teach the acceptability of homosexual lifestyles, there was no need to mention just how all of this added to "impurity" of the race and the lifting up of defectives, etc. It was awful. So the Bill passed and for that I am grateful. But the struggle is far from over. The clever subtexts of the opponents to this bill make it clear.

Here is what the Wilmington News Journal reported this morning (Thursday June 25) :


Legislators vote to halt discrimination based on sexual orientation

By MIKE CHALMERS The News Journal (Wilmington Delaware)

DOVER - Gays and lesbians in Delaware will have legal protection from discrimination under a bill that passed the General Assembly late Wednesday night, more than a decade after supporters started fighting for it.

The House chamber erupted in applause, cheers and hugs when representatives passed the measure shortly after 8:30 p.m. An hour earlier the Senate - where previous versions of the legislation always were killed - passed the same bill after a three-hour debate.

The bill now goes to Gov. Jack Markell for his signature. Rep. Pete Schwartzkopf, Who helped push the bill through the House, said Markell has expressed support for it.

"We made a big step for¬ward tonight,” said Drewry Fennell, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Delaware, which supported the bill. "It protects the most basic activities of human life - moving about the world, earning a living, keeping a roof over your head," Fennell said. "Now the state has said you can't be discriminated against because of sexual orientation."

The measure, Senate Bill 121, adds sexual orientation to the list of protections under Delaware's anti-discrimination law. That law covers housing, employment, public works contracting, public accommodations and insurance.

Opponents of the bill argued it pushes their religious convictions aside in favor of "sexual liberties."

Five similar bills have passed in the House in the past decade but then stalled in Senate Committees. Intense, behind-the-scenes lob¬bying by supporters brought the proposal to full votes in both houses Wednesday evening.

"We knew if we could get it to the floor for to honest debate, it would pass," said Schwartzkopf, D-Rehoboth, and House majority leader Rep. William Oberle Jr., R - Beecher's Lot, has been pushing the proposal for more than a decade.

"It's obviously a great feeling," Oberle said. "When you're doing the right thing, it makes it a lot easier to deal with [frustrations and pressure]. We did the right thing tonight."

The measure that passed Wednesday night is nearly identical to one that passed the House in March. That House bill died in the Senate Executive Committee, where the late Sen. Thurman Adams would not let it be brought to the full Senate.

Instead, Sen. David Sokola, D-Newark introduced his own bill, which was assigned to the Senate Insurance Committee. That five-member body voted unanimously last week to send the bill to the full Senate, setting up Wednesday night’s events.

The Senate began the debate shortly after 4 p.m. More than 70 people packed the chamber's balcony gallery and dozens more sat in chairs circling the Senate floor.

Sens. Robert Venables, D- Laurel, and George Bunting, D -Bethany Beach, began by asking Sokola to postpone the vote until January because of the budget crisis, Adams' death and the absence of Sen. Bruce Ennis, D-Smyrna, from the floor.

Sokola responded that legislators had plenty of time to learn about the bill and line up witnesses.
The debate centered on three amendments, co-sponsored by Adams, that Venables introduced last week. Venables and his supporters said the amendments would have:
• Clarified that the bill could not be used to force recognition of same-sex marriages.
• Prevented schools from teaching acceptance of homosexuality.
• Allowed individuals and businesses who object to homosexuality because of "sincerely held religious or conscientious beliefs" not to be forced to participate in objectionable practices.

As each amendment came to the floor, its supporters and opponents brought witnesses to comment on them. For each lawyer or clergyman' that supporters sent to the podium, opponents had their own lawyers and clergymen.

Speaking in favor of all three 'amendments was Tim Tracey, an attorney for the Alliance Defense Fund, a conservative advocacy group whose mission is "to aggressively defend religious liberty."

He said activists in other states have used similar laws to push for same-sex marriage and the teaching of homosexuality in schools. He listed several court cases in which, he said, "religious freedom lost, even though it's enshrined in the First Amendment."

Venables several times said he did not think discrimination based on sexual orientation even existed. He doubted that homosexuals should be given legal protection for what he said was a lifestyle choice.

''I'm convinced that lesbians can be made," Venables said. "I don't want it taught in our schools that this is a normal lifestyle,"

Opponents countered that discrimination does exist and should be prevented

The Rev. Mark Harris, associate priest at St. Peter's Episco¬pal Church in Lewes, said allowing individuals or businesses to essentially ignore the law because of their beliefs would "eviscerate" the bill.

"Our individual religious proclivities are ours," Harris said. "But if I run a publicly accessible place of business, I can't do that [ignore the law]."

All three amendments were defeated by a 12-6 vote. The debate on the full bill lasted only about a half-hour and was approved, 14-5.

After the Senate approved the bill, it moved to the House, which stayed in session well past its normal quitting time so it could vote on the measure.

Opponents introduced four amendments in the House - three that were identical to those defeated in the Senate and one that was a scaled-back version of Venables' marriage-defense amendment.

All four were defeated.

END.

Pretty good day's (and decade's) work.

Moving On: holding them "Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

Near the end of the Declaration of Independence there is this line: "We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends."

From either side I suspect there is relief in that: the Separation is real. Now the relations are as between peoples, nations, tribes, and in this case, of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in North America. We are now in ecumenical relation to ACNA. They are not sister church to us, they are not part of the family of churches of the Anglican Communion. They are a Christian Church distinct and different from The Episcopal Church or the Anglican Church of Canada.

Here at Preludium some care has been taken to refer to Robert W. Duncan by the office to which he was called, in The Episcopal Church or elsewhere. When he ceased to be a bishop in this Church I referred to him as Moderator Duncan by virtue of his office with the Anglican Communion Network and the Common Cause Partnership. When the issue concerned his relation to or comments upon The Episcopal Church I also referenced him as deposed in The Episcopal Church to make it clear that he has no standing as bishop in this Church.

Now, however, he makes no claim on that history of his. Now he has sworn to uphold the Constitution and Canons of ACNA just as he once swore to do so regarding the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church. Perhaps he will be more comfortable with this set of affirmations. So on this blog he will now be referred to as ACNA Archbishop Duncan, just as one might speak of the Traditional Anglican Communion Archbishop. When he is commenting on or referring to The Episcopal Church I will remind readers that he is not a bishop as far as this Church is concerned.

It seems to me that the relation between The Episcopal Church an the Anglican Church in North America is now similar to that between this church and any other church in Christendom. If they determine that we are the enemy, unChristian, heretical, unOrthodox, contenders spiritual warfare, or the adversary, then I suppose we are enemies. If we are united in common cause for the good of the world or in the name of Christ, then we are Friends.

It is time to move on.

There are still bits and pieces to work out. What the assisting bishop in Springfield, retired of Quincy, Bishop Ackerman, will do is still an item of interest. There are various property disputes. There is the whole question of the relation of ACNA to Canterbury. There is still the need to be watchful.

There is also the question of just what sort of thing ACNA is. We know it is a church, a church with bishops and an Archbishop / Primate. It is also called by reporter George Conger, "The 39th Province - in - waiting." This of course in support of the notion that the end game is either dual jurisdictions in North America, or ACNA's own sense that its destiny is to be THE jurisdiction of the Anglican Communion in North America. The Anglican Communion is not breaking up, it appears. Rather a second world wide Anglican grouping, one not referencing Canterbury directly and not including a number of older churches, fundamentalist in decidedly un-Anglican ways is developing. If so it will join a variety of other world-wide Anglican bodies and will take its place in the history of the Church.

Now it is time to turn to other tasks.

Giving up stuff, Reconstituting, and otherwise saying good by.

Moderator Robert Duncan, to be installed as Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, gave an opening address Monday to the ACNA meeting in Texas. Among other things he had several observations about martyrdom, reconstituting faithful Anglicanism and muscular Christianity. They tell us a lot about the worldview of either the Moderator / Archbishop or the whole of ACNA.

He said, "Many of us have sacrificed a great deal to follow Jesus to this place. Many of us have lost properties and sacred treasures and incomes and pensions and standing and friends."

How true is this? A number of properties and sacred treasures have gone with the realignment group, although for how long in some cases is unclear. Some who left lost incomes, although quite a few, leaving with their parishes, were able to continue. Anyone who leaves the employ of The Episcopal Church stops giving to the Pension Fund and their benefits (which are based on years of service) stop growing. But those who leave do not lose their pensions. They lose the right to continue expanding their pension with the Church Pension Fund. That is precisely why it was wise of the Anglican Communion Network and now ACNA to have a plan in place. As for standing, they left because they thought their standing in what they now believe to be an unChristian entity (The Episcopal Church) was not worth sticking around for. So in all of these elements of martyrdom, the level of suffering is not only less than the glory that is about to be revealed, but for many it is less that as dramatically portrayed. For some the suffering is yet to come as miserable financial times, possible need to return property is determined and salaries are frozen or cut back, or cut out. So how true? True enough, but not in ways that do not also affect people remaining with The Episcopal Church.

We too have parishioners who have lost their parish, treasures, etc. We too have clergy that suddenly are without a job, whose pensions are affected, etc. And, lest we forget, there is the continuing suffering of gay and lesbian members of the Church who still must deal on a regular basis with the results of second-class citizenship.

But this isn't a game of my suffering is greater than yours. In every such struggle there is pain enough to go around. The thing is, when the Moderator calls it out as a special characteristic of the founders of ACNA in these days he is drawing attention narrowly, not broadly. The split off has been caused by and causes suffering in many quarters.

About the last of his list - friends - he is entirely right. We have all lost friends in this mess. One person commenting on a previous blog entry on Distinguished Visitors at ACNA said, "I note that two friends - I hope they still are! - are listed - Bishop Alpha Muhammad and Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi. One of the sad things about all "divorces" is that they strain friendships." They do indeed. I look through the list of clergy deposed in San Joaquin and see names I recognize, or think about people I know in Fort Worth, or remember my friendship with Bob Duncan, I realize the terrible cost of this sort of mess. We lose friends and connections and they not easily found again. Again, it is not unique to the founding members of ACNA, it is true for us all.

Playing the suffering card does not work.

The Moderator then says, "As we begin – as we gather to re-constitute a faithful Anglican Church here in North America – this drawing together of so many fragments from so many places – the Lord just wanted to remind us about conversion and witness and sacrifice, and about our part in each, for the transformation of others. The work is not over yet, in fact, for us, only just beginning. The giving is not complete yet. The Kingdom has not fully come yet. Like Alban (and the unnamed priest who dared to tell Alban about Jesus) we actually stand at the beginning of something, something that will come to be called Anglican."

At the core of my opposition to ACNA and to the Anglican Communion Network before it is the bold, and I believe amazingly erroneous, proposition that The Episcopal Church, its leadership in particular, have forgotten, displaced, thrown out, or otherwise disposed of the faith "once delivered to the Saints," and in particular to the people who came to be called Anglican. The whole justification of ACNA is that The Episcopal Church is no longer Christian, or barring that certainly no longer Anglican. And that is rubbish. Not very good rubbish either. It is judgmental, condemning, and unworthy the best in the critical efforts to continually reform the Church.

Playing the "I'm Christian, you are not", does not work.

The Moderator also said, "

"... Some here will remember the dictums (dare I call them “battle-cries”?) of that muscular Christianity that once reigned in these lands – in Canada and in the US: “No cross, no crown!” “No pain, no gain.” The fugitive priest was ready. The layman Alban was ready. Are we ready? Are we willing?"

The reemergence of the notion of a muscular Christianity is a call to a return to martyrdom, but oddly it is also a call to a kind of strong-man theology, in which if we in America (sorry Canadians and all others of the Americas) just got our bodies in shape we could better reflect the glory that would come to a people whose bodies were as muscular as their faith. We as a Christian nation would perserver. Charles Kingsley seems to have been the great Victorian proponent of this, although he did not like the phrase. (a cartoon of him preaching the word to a young man is to the left.)

Muscular Christianity does not have an unmixed history. It may have spawned the YMCA and basketball and volleyball, but it also produced issue which was decidedly homoerotic, sometimes racists and often picked up by unpleasant people who thought the manly graces, Christian virtues, and the worship of the State all went together just fine. It is decidedly unpleasant to have the Moderator call up this image in his address. Muscular Christianity is filled with the grit and stick-to-it virtues at are clearly manly but also oddly counter intuitive to what we know of many of the Christian virtues.

Having just this week learned the extent to which "no pain, no gain" is false, let me suggest that "some pain, some gain, lots of pain no gain." My knee is swollen having taken on more pain for gain that this miserable body is equipped to handle. As for "no cross, no crown," I thought the whole point of the Cross was a once and for all sort of thing. Perhaps the saying is better, "One Cross, One Crown, many crosses lots of dead people." Oh I know, we all have to suffer, etc. But if our suffering has been taken upon Him, perhaps we need not go in for more suffering to prove our worth. We are worthy not because of our suffering, but because of His.

Muscular Christianity is a distinctly stupid idea.

Well, that's at least how I read it.

I ache for losing friends, but they are lost. I am a member of The Episcopal Church and we are the Anglican Church that is part of the Anglican Communion in this neighborhood. I think muscular Christianity is a really really odd thing to bring up at this time.

Then again, I am not starting a new church either.

I wish the people of ACNA find peace and new grace in being together.

I also hope they understand that we are Episcopalian and we are Anglican and we have no intention of acceding to their judgment of us. We will need to be watchful, for these are difficult times and the wreckage in the fast lane is an unpleasant sight to behold.

The ACNA Bishops gather.

Here they are: ACNA Bishops gathered after the Service on Sunday. Most are those who make up the ACNA College of Bishops. Some are visitors.

Their number will be increased by three more elected (by the College) for Canada:

The Venerable Charles Masters, Executive Archdeacon
The Venerable Dr Trevor Walters, Archdeacon for BC
The Rev Stephen Leung, rector, Church of the Good Shepherd (Vancouver, BC)

and

Three bishops-designate from the dioceses of the Anglican Mission in the Americas previously selected by the Anglican Province of Rwanda.

The Rev Dr Todd Hunter, leader of Churches for the Sake of Others
The Rev Canon Doc Loomis, Canon Missioner for AMiA;
The Rev Silas TAK Yin Ng, rector, Richmond Emmanuel (Richmond, BC)

plus

For the Diocese of Western Anglicans

The Rev William Thompson

For Forward in Faith Diocese in formation

The Rev William Ilgenfritz

All in all 8 new bishops.

ACNA seems to have learned its bishop strategies from the Province of the Southern Cone, where, as Bishop Fran Lyons said today, the Province has decided on a amazing expansion of bishops, particularly given that the whole Province has perhaps 25,000 people.

What will become of all of them?

Bishop Marray represents Anglican Communion Office? ACNA lists guests

The Anglican Church in North America website has posted the list of Ecumenical and Anglican Visitors Attending Assembly.

Perhaps the most interesting item on the list is that Bishop Marray is listed not as Pastoral Visitor but as representing the Anglican Communion Office.

About the "Anglican official delegations." Notice that West Africa, Kenya and Southern Cone have Primates in attendance. The Global South Primates did not make a great showing.

Anglican official delegations

- West Africa: Archbishop Justice Akrofi
- Nigeria: Bishop Alfred Nwaizuzu
- Uganda: Bishop Evans Kisekka (Representing Archbishop Henry Orombi)
- Kenya: Archbishop Benjamin Nzimbi
- Southern Cone: Archbishop Gregory Venables; Bishop Tito Zavala (Chile); Bishop Frank Lyons (Bolivia)
- Jerusalem & the Middle East: Rev. Sherif Lemey Gendy (Representing Archbishop Mouneer Anis)
- Myanmar: Bishop Saw Noel Nay Lin, Bishop of Mandalay (Representing Archbishop Stephen Oo)
- South East Asia: Bishop Tak Meng Wong (Representing Archbishop John Chew)
- Rwanda: Bishop Chuck Murphy (Representing Archbishop Emanuel Kolini)

Anglican Visitors

- Bishop John Ellison, Church of Paraguay/Church of England
- Ven. Norman Russell, Church of England
- Rev. Canon Dr. Chris Sugden, Church of England
- Bishop Santosh Marray, Bishop of Seychelles (Indian Ocean), (Representing the Anglican Communion Office)
- Bishop Alpha Muhammad, Tanzania

Ecumenical Guests

- Metropolitan Jonah, Orthodox Church in America
- Bishop Walter Grundorf, Anglican Province of America
- Rev. Dr. Samuel Nafzger, Lutheran Church, Missouri Synod
- Pastor Rick Warren, Saddleback Church
- Bishop Kevin Vann, Roman Catholic Bishop of Fort Worth

Why is the Archbishop sending one of the Pastoral Visitors?

The Archbishop of Canterbury has in place a group of people called Pastoral Visitors. They are

• the Rt. Rev. Santosh Marray, bishop of Seychelles (Indian Ocean);
• the Rt. Rev. Colin Bennetts, retired bishop of Coventry (England);
• the Rt. Rev. Simon Chiwanga, retired bishop of Mpwapwa (Tanzania) and former chairman of the Anglican Consultative Council;
• Major General Tim Cross, a retired British soldier who was the U.K.'s senior-most officer involved in the Pentagon's post-war planning in Iraq;
• Canon Chad Gandiya, Africa desk officer for the U.K.-based mission organization USPG; and
• the Very Rev. Justin Welby, dean of Liverpool Cathedral (England).

One of them, Bishop Santosh Marray, is in attendance at the Anglican Church in North America constituting convention.

Now according to ENS, in its article on the Pastoral Visitors, the supposed reason for the Pastoral Visitors is this:

Both the primates and the continuation group supported Williams' plan to appoint an interim group of "pastoral visitors" who could be called upon in any dispute or situation of tension until the May 1-12 meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council, the communion's main legislative body. Despite that time limit, the continuation group noted that Williams suggested an initial 12-month appointment.

The group's recent report, which was presented to the primates at their February meeting, also noted that the visitors would be required to act in a manner "consistent with the constitutions and canons of those provinces" in which they operate. Further, the group said it welcomed what it called Williams' decision that the visitors "would not have any authority to make dispositions or proposals for structural solutions to any situation, unless expressly authorized to do so by the primate or other lawful authority of the particular provinces with which they have been asked to work."

We might hope, therefore, that the Pastoral Visitor, Bishop Marray, would visit, make no supportive or encouraging statements, make no statements at all really but observe, and GO HOME.

Why is the ABC sending anyone? There is no "dispute or situation of tension" at the ACNA meeting. They are there and The Episcopal Church is going about its business preparing for General Convention. The ABC has no business sending a Pastoral Visitor as an observer. Someone else, perhaps, but this gives the Pastoral Visitor scheme a scheming sort of flavor.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is muddling and meddling and it would be helpful to know just how much of this is being done with full disclosure.

Archbishop to be Duncan has reported that Archbishop Williams has encouraged ACNA to apply for membership in the Anglican Communion. Canterbury has been talking to (then) Bishop Duncan for a long time and the assertion continues to be made that Canterbury did not just listen to those forming the Network, which became the Partnership, which became ACNA, but even suggested calling it a Network and using the word "confessing" in its full name. That was later dropped, but has reappeared in full flower. Now the talk is of a "confessing Anglicanism."

There has been much too much slack cut for the Archbishop of Canterbury who has played a quite strong monarchical hand in matters outside his venue. Or perhaps he didn't read the implications of the "no jurisdiction in this realm," bit in the Thirty Nine Articles.

5:22 EDT, ACNA Constituted.

Well, there it is. The Constitution of the Anglican Church in North America has been accepted by representatives of the 28 groups that make up the ACNA. There were few changes, but one suggestion of some interest was voted down.

The suggestion was to take out item 4 of the Constitution, namely,

"We are grieved by the current state of brokenness within the Anglican Communion prompted by those who have embraced erroneous teaching and who have rejected a repeated call to repentance."

It appears the vote was not to do so.

Bye Bye.

Covenant and Communion Resolutions of ACNA Provincial Council

The Provincial Council of the about to be formed Anglican Church in North America has passed two resolutions on Covenant matters:

"Resolved, under provisions of Canon I.1.1 of the Constitution and Canons, the Provincial Council of the Anglican Church in North America expresses its readiness to adopt the proposed Anglican Communion Covenant (Ridley Cambridge Draft) at an appropriate future meeting of the Provincial Council."

All of which is to say they are standing at the head of the line to be another "church" not currently part of the Anglican Communion to be considered a member using the Anglican Covenant as the entry test. Nothing is said, of course, about the fact that,

"Our ultimate goal is a realignment of Anglicanism on North American soil committed to biblical faith and values, and driven by Gospel mission. We believe in the end this should be a “replacement” jurisdiction with confessional standards, maintaining the historic faith of our Communion, closely aligned with the majority of world Anglicanism." This from the Chapman Memo.

So they are ready to stand in like to be admitted, but the caveat is that the do so with the goal to replace The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada as the jurisdictions of the Communion already here.

"Further Resolved, that the Provincial Council of the Anglican Church in North America expresses its solidarity with the Communion Partner Bishops in North America in the hope that individual dioceses and other churches [Covenant 4.1.5] might be encouraged to adopt the Anglican Communion Covenant whether or not the Provinces of which they are a part have chosen to do so."

The Communion Partner Bishops paper, written by Mark McCall, was published when it was for several reasons, among them to provide just precisely this possibility as well as to shore up the argument that The Episcopal Church is not a hierarchical church. How nice of ACNA to come to their support.

According to BabyBlue there is a representative from the Diocese of South Carolina, whose bishop is a member of the Communion Partner Bishops group.

So the Provincial Council is making their connections and tidying up.

American Patriot's Bible: Thumping the Bible for Patriotism

Bible thumping for Patriotism... it's always been a BIG THING here in the USofA, but good Lord, look at what we have now. Thomas Nelson, publisher of bibles, has produced an amazing product titled "The American Patriot's Bible." There is a devastating critique of it in two parts by Dr. Gregory A. Boyd, HERE and HERE. A secondary review by Inhabitatio Dei can be found HERE. And no, I haven't bought a copy nor do I intend to.

I have read the Bible. The text of that is Good News. All the rest of this supposed bible is a product, just as are the The Woman's Bible, The Man's Bible, etc. In this case, however, it is a bible nicely packaged so one can identify oneself as an American Patriot. That is the product, the biblical text (New King James Version) is the pretext.

Flag waving patriotism is always with us but these days it seems to have taken hold as the comfort to the nation in a time of insecurity. No criticism of the military or specific wars can happen without rousing support of "our men and women in uniform," to make sure we are patriotic. We can criticise our government all we want, and there is great sport in it, but here in the USA we cannot easily criticise our country - suggesting for a moment that it might not be absolutely the best country in the world. Flag waving patriotism wraps up support of the military and the USA into a bundle and makes patriotism equivalent to supporting the military and the best country in the world - right or wrong.

Wrap that flag around a bible, and voila... the American Patriot's Bible. Well, Thomas Nelson, shame! The trouble is, there will be lots of buyers for this book and many of them will come from around where I live. More bad domesticated religious trappings passing as Christian faith.

Matt Gunter on Olson's "The Episcopal "Reform of the Reform," corrected

(I misunderstood that Matt Gunter wrote the peace on Reform of the Reform, he was pointing us to the piece. I apologize for the error and to Derek Olson and have corrected this to reflect the fact.)

Matt Gunter, over on Covenant, has pointed us to a thoughtful piece by Derek Olson's piece from his blog at "The Episcopal “Reform of the Reform”. It is worth the read. I particularly point you to what Olson calls, "The Common Voice." His beginning is that the 79 BCP promoted liturgical license rather than common liturgical voice and that it is time for us to "re-assert a hermeneutic of continuity—and not rupture—and embrace the ‘79 BCP within the context of classical Anglican liturgy and theology and within the historic expression of the Christian Faith which we understand to be rooted in the Canon of Scripture, the Creeds, the Apostolic Succession, and the Great Sacraments." For many of us, when the then "new" book came in to use, we were diligent in making use of it precisely as it assumed we ought. License was not about moving beyond the BCP, but making use of the freedoms within it.

For those of us who have been faithful to the use of the BCP, (and I think we are the overwhelming percentage of the people of the Church) liturgical change has not been a matter of license as much as a matter of slow change within the congregation and in the flow of liturgical engagement between priest and people. There are significant numbers of people in our congregation who now respond to the opening salutation "Blessed be God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit," with "and blessed be God's kingdom, now and forever." Or at the beginning of the Great Thanksgiving respond to "Let us give thanks to the Lord our God," with "It is right to give God thanks and praise." The movement to this was slow and is not complete. The leaflet for the service gives the BCP language. But some people are changing. Slowly.

For some years I have, as celebrant, stated the Invitation to Communion as follows:
"These are the Gifts of God, and You are the People of God, take them...." I made the decision to do so believing that making the statements more clearly a declaration made the invitation all the more urgent. I don't use this all the time, it isn't printed that way in the leaflet, I didn't ask permission for the change. I stand ready to be corrected. But I also believe this may be part of the slow movement toward change in practice. It may or may not make it into the next round, but who knows? I believe it is true the original meaning of the phrase, but less abstractly stated.

As is meet, right and our bounden duty I suppose each liturgical generation in its time proposes adherence to liturgical form that was at some earlier time considered a radically revised liturgy. That is as it should be I suppose. What is interesting about Olson's propositions is that they mostly support the notion that the Book of Common Prayer ought to be prayed and read and used as a whole, giving each part its due, and that the current BCP is indeed the standard for worship in The Episcopal Church. That being the case, Olson suggests we pay attention to what we have.

A great deal of what he recommends is, I suspect, the parish standard, shared by most churches in every Diocese. I particularly appreciate his view that we need to pay attention to the Daily Offices in conjunction with the Eucharist.

The plea that we work within the BCP of 1979 raises the question: Is Gunter in pointing us to this article, and Olson in writing, speaking from a reformed and informed place, or is this simply Episcopalians doing Episcopalian grump? Hegel says, "The Owl of Minerva flies only at dusk." Maybe about the time we say goodbye to the BCP 1979 we finally get around to appreciating it for its contribution to liturgical life. I think Olson is doing more than a grump, although grump is there. He is saying that the final reform of the 79 book is to make it the "real" book where license is limited by rubric and liturgical intention.

I was troubled by one of his major points:

"Reorient towards the faith and practice as witnessed in the early days. I.e., reading and teaching the Scriptures and the Church Fathers. Furthermore, not just echoing their words, but learning from them how to think theologically. They used the best science of their day combined with reason directed by the Spirit and shaped by the virtues."

Had he gone in the direction of a plea to look at the early liturgies of the Church (and particularly the liturgies of the so called East) I would have agreed, for there the "faith and practice as witnessed in the early days" finds its parallel to liturgical life today. I'm all for reading the theologians of the early church. How they thought theologically is indeed important. But the "best science of their day" is just different from the best science of today, as is their understanding of reason and even the virtues. On several occasions we have, for prayer and study purposes, used a variety of pre-reformation liturgies in small group services. The content has been wonderfully constant. I have worshiped often in Romanian Orthodox liturgies and it has felt like a welcome home. But we live in a differently configured world and I am a visitor to the Romanian liturgy, honored, but a visitor. There is no way that I am not heterodox. That would be true even if I was reaching for orthodoxy as an Anglican.

So, there is lots to ponder in this essay. Read the essay HERE.

The Situation is Excellent, just a little disorderly.

We are now two and a half weeks from the beginning of General Convention. I am weary from all the negative crap on all the negative blogs that can't stand The Episcopal Church. I am depressed by the sound of many voices that can't stand the possibility of bishops and deputies acting on their own, using their own sense of how that balanced stool of Scripture, Reason and Tradition works, and from that making decisions.

There is a sea of unrest on which the General Convention will float. Some of the unrest produces comparatively mild currents, some is more rough. I've been chasing around trying to find some way to state what I think is going on.

Three quotes come to mind:

"At any given instant All solids dissolve, no wheels revolve, And facts have no endurance -- And who knows if it is by design or pure inadvertence That the Present destroys its inherited self-importance?" That's from W. H. Auden's "For the Time Being", (1940). It is the opening quotation in Simon Winchester's "Krakatoa," which concerns the Krakatoa volcano which erupted on August 27, 1883.

"There is great disorder under Heaven and the situation is excellent."

Supposedly from Chairman Mao's little Red Book, quoted by Uncle Duke in the Doonesbury cartoons of G. B. Trudeau. MacArthur responds, "sounds like one of your parties, Sir."

“There is a lot of wreckage in the fast lane these days.”

That is Hunter S. Thompson, RIP. And there is indeed.

So in Anglican land the shakedown seems volcano - like in its rumblings, and "the present destroys its inherited self-importance," there is great disorder under Heaven, wreckage in the fast lane, and yet, the situation is excellent.

Fine. My depression of the past few days is lifted. That depression is the all purpose Anglican depression here in the pit, getting the car ready for the ten day race called General Convention. It was due to my forgetting Auden, Mao and Thompson and all the others who know the intemperate demands of the mob. The thing is, dear friends, while we may be up to all sorts of things "for the time being," actually we are all running the race that is set before us and disorderly or not, we do what we need to do. Once we have set our hand to the plow it is time to look forward, not back. Otherwise we miss the turn, miss the party, miss the point.

So time to get some little things straight:

(i) The House of Bishops Theology Committee has a "secret" subcommittee looking at issues of same sex relationships. There is considerable concern that this secrecy is not right. It isn't but don't turn in here. The fact is no one will care very much what is said by this group. Time has passed them by.

(ii) A conservative, traditional, and well loved order of Nuns is moving from The Episcopal Church to the Roman Catholic Church. This group, some of whose members I know, is a fine and caring community. But they have been on the edge of The Episcopal Church for years believing as they do that women cannot be priests and therefore refusing to receive Communion when a woman is celebrant or when the elements may have previously been consecrated by a woman. They will go where they will, and God's speed. But they seem to understand this as their problem, not necessarily the problem of The Episcopal Church.

(iii) The formation of the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) is underway, with two more resigned bishops of The Episcopal Church part of their number, two bishops in TEC as members of ACNA governance, and three new bishops being ordained by Rwanda to serve with one of ACNA's member groups. Going, going, gone. We will miss them, but not their constant harping on the belief that TEC, at least its leadership, is unChristian and unorthodox, and revisionists, and wrong, and destroying the church, and all that. They do not wish to be part of the Episcopal Church. OK, don't. But that is no reason why we ought to let you take the silver, the pews, the records, the inheritance, and oh yes, the name Anglican from us.

Still, if several African Provinces and the Province of the Southern Cone and a considerable crown of malcontents formerly of The Episcopal Church do snatch the name Anglican from under our nose, damn fool us. We can live with being fools. In the end perhaps the name Anglican will be inherited by people who never were English, don't speak English as their native tongue and who now have U.S. and Canadian branch offices of an Anglican Church that is neither Anglican or Episcopal but just sounds as if it is.

Wreckage in the fast lane, bubba. That's what we will see. And we will have to steer through it to the other side. "We are plowing North America, come blow your horn," to paraphrase Wallace Stephens. We are plowing new furrows in a new land and the present times loose their grip on self-importance. Time to move on. Nothing to see here. Move along.

ACNA will be a highly successful first beginnings of a world wide Anglican Church or it will be a wreck in the fast lane, or both. Since when did we think yet another world wide church was an improvement? No. Time to keep on keeping on. We will make whatever decisions we make at General Convention and live with them, but we need to face into the future, not the past.

(iv) The Archbishop of Canterbury will lead a study at one of the Eucharists during the General Convention. He has made no comment on Rwanda's announcement, or on ACNA , but has urged the churches to work on the Anglican Covenant proposal and to maintain the moratoria on rites of blessing and the consent to the ordination of gay bishops in relation. General Convention needs to make its own mind up and without his direction. No need to worry. When he is helpful he is immensely so, when he is not he is another ripple in the disorder of the times. We need to get about God's mission for this people.

(v) There is considerable grumbling about the legislative process getting swallowed up in the miseries of constant wrangling over B033 and the blessing of same sex relationships. People might do well to read the resources of Claiming the Blessing and THIS by Rev. Dr. Elizabeth Kaeton. So they are suggesting that we get over it and move on. Actually so is the Chicago Coalition and almost everyone else in the universe.

So the suggestion has been touted about that on the first day of Convention there might be a special order of business, vote the two propositions up or down, save the various committees and the whole Convention a heap of verbiage and get on with other business. All sorts of good, bad and ugly things might transpire from doing this sort of approach, but it has the distinctly 21st century sensibility to it that grows from a community of people who, while they gather at General Convention, actually have been in fairly deep contact over some considerable time. For them, and perhaps for many of us, the various takes on the issues have already been vetted. More talk is not better talk in this case. Let's just get on with the business of being a missionary church.

(vi) In the midst of being rocked about by all this, I was expressing my depression to my trainer today and she said, "well, everybody is nervous. The economy is belly up and people, even those not immediately touched, are anxious. These are anxious times." They are indeed. General Theological Seminary has done a good thing economically and the Chronicle of Higher Education has dumped on them. See the story HERE. Anxiety abounds.

Interestingly, in the various blogging about the Church, the new thingy that is ACNA, the array or disarray of the Church Center, the ecumenical doings, and even the Anglican Communion affairs almost no one is talking about the anxiety that is the product of these economic times. Sure, there is moaning about the legal costs of trying to retain property, title, and such things, there are cutbacks going on in Dioceses and parishes, and re-ordering of things at The Church Center. But very little about the anxiety that goes with the "whole picture." Our faith has something wonderful for us to bring to the anxiety. It is the message of Jesus on the troubled waters, "don't be afraid." Indeed not.

(vii) No one has raised yet (but we will) the fact that the anxiety in the US concerning the church related implications of the economy is only magnified for churches that we support elsewhere in the world. The dollar may not buy as much here, but there are some of them available. What about in Haiti or the Dominican Republic or Guatemala, or Liberia? We may suffer some, but it is hitting them even harder. It always does. So into the mix at General Convention somewhere we need to wonder if it is time to send help to the saints elsewhere, not from our surplus, but from our core, or perhaps coeur.

How do we send help? How do we say, "do not be afraid," and have it be more than hollow nice words? We will find a way. If not we will have missed it. And there is more... always more. But I am more and more convinced that the Situation is indeed excellent. The disorder gives us all sorts of opportunity to proclaim the Good News in Jesus Christ, to others, to ourselves, to the world. If we did not think so going to General Convention would be a waste.

Time to live into the disorder under Heaven, and the excellent Situation. For we are bound for Glory. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Archbishop Eames on Reconciliation

Lord Eames gave the St George's Windsor Lecture on May 26, 2009. It is a thoughtful reflection and timely in terms of the chaotic situation in the Anglican Communion and The Episcopal Church. I have thought to include the whole thing here, but would rather you read it HERE if you wish. It is not too long, but worth a read and re-read.

George Conger gives a useful summary of the lecture HERE.

Here are several quotations, rich for the mining:

"What is known as ‘The Windsor Report' - as I have said a recognition that we did much of our work within these walls of St Georges' - sought to produce a road map for greater understanding of the divisions within Anglicanism. Much of that division centred on and stemmed from questions of sexuality, but my experience at that time and since has left me with little doubt that behind the headlines of the main agenda there were significant questions to be asked to do with authority, power and influence. Certainly there were sharp divisions over the question of a practising gay bishop, division that represented contrasting interpretation of Scripture and the understanding of Tradition – but whatever lies ahead for Anglicanism I am convinced that reconciliation must take account of what I have termed those other agendas."

We have had very little in the way of conversations and work about "authority, power and influence." Certainly those concerns have been present and the attitudes about them used effectively by various parties. But not much has been done where people sat down and talked about THAT.

"What in fact emerged was a Report which contained sign-posts, laying out the possible routes to greater understanding of each others arguments. Anglicanism has moved on since Windsor. Now the talk is about a Covenant, about parallel jurisdictions. Inclusiveness is compared to diversity with sections of that world family finding strength in alliances of fellow-travellers who maintain their differences of approach to Tradition and interpretation of Scripture through new ideas of authority or 'bonds of affection' - but with little evidence of the cohesiveness of those early years of the Communion. So was Windsor an attempt not at total reconciliation of the irreconcilable but an encouragement to understand more of others' approaches and deeply held faith convictions? Does that represent something of importance about reconciliation? Has it more to do with understanding others than it has to do with producing some sort of stereotype? Is that the core purpose of a process called 'reconciliation'?"

I think Archbishop Eames overreaches here. He too believed that the Windsor Report got taken too quickly as the "mind of the Communion." The report was a report, not an enforceable set of demands. But the question at the end is most interesting, "Has it (the Windsor Report) more to do with understanding others than it has to do with producing some sort of stereotype?"


"The truth is this: we cannot legislate for reconciliation. People cannot embrace reconciliation through law alone. Legislation can put in place the bricks which can ultimately make reconciliation possible either by outlawing those actions or attitudes which mitigate against a reconciled community or by encouraging policies and attitudes which help people of different traditions to understand each other better. But there is, I suggest, inherent danger in assuming a stroke of the political pen solves all problems."

This points interestingly to the Anglican Covenant problem. IF the AC is viewed as legislation for reconciliation, then it is doomed. If it is rather a basis for people who disagree to know the areas of their agreement, the character of their differences in understanding, etc, perhaps the AC becomes a way for us all to understand each other better.

"There is little doubt in my mind as to the vital need to understand afresh the role and potential of dialogue in the process of reconciliation."

Dialogue is of course lacking when there is a refusal to "walk together" with people who believe differently and act on those beliefs.

"In the entire process of dialogue so essential to defining tensions and thereby increasing contact and understanding the inevitable dilemma comes to the fore."

The dilemma is the stark problem that reconciliation requires walking with, talking with, being with, people with whom we strongly disagree. Archbishop Eames is clear that reconciliation can not happen unless there is dialogue with our adversaries as well as our friends.

The Archbishop closed with a fascinating reference,

"What did the ancient Rwandan proverb say?: ‘To go fast, walk alone. To go far, walk together.’"

Given the Global South insistence that Amos 3:3 meant that we could not walk together unless we were agreed (in agreement) this proverb suggests a reason for walking together because we want to, and it suggests that those who are interested in walking faster and therefore alone, may not get that far. This sticks it to both the realignment and the progressive communities: everyone gets equal criticism. But it does not mean that walking together is walking in agreement, but rather in dialogue working toward reconciliation.

But of course that does not serve the realignment crowd very well, for there was never any interest in talking to those of us who, in their eyes, fell away from the truth. And there is the pit of the problem: Reconciliation is only possible if we want it.

And for the progressives the problem is that reconciliation is sometimes viewed as a delaying tactic and finally a way of exhausting the progressive efforts. If progressives believe there are matters of justice at stake, then justice delayed is justice denied. Reconciliation cannot be just dialogue. It is dialogue in the heat of struggle. And again, such dialogue is hard to come by and reconciliation is possible only if we want it.

Read the whole thing. It is much better than these mutterings.