Sermon: No Heavy Burden.

Sermon for 7 Pentecost:

The Gospel read this morning can be viewed as a little drama in three parts: Jesus first prays to God, “I thank you Father…” He then, as a rabbi, comments on this prayer in a teaching for his disciples and perhaps some others close at hand. And at the last he addresses the crowd. We can even think about how we would stage this: The movement is from prayer, to teaching, to proclamation. So the gaze of Jesus might be up to heaven, then down and near to his friends and disciples, and then out across the heads of the people yearning to hear.

The last section is this wonderful and freeing statement: “Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

Many of you will recognize this phrase. It is the first of the comfortable words following confession in Rite I: “Come unto me, all ye that travail and are heavy laden, and I will refresh you.”

We all carry heavy burdens: some of them are in the normal sense spiritual – we grieve lost family members, lost opportunities, lost loves; we sorrow for things done poorly, wrongly, or not rightly; we feel the weight of our sins and our offenses.

Some of them are perhaps more social: the burden of debts, of responsibilities, of sick family members, of partners or children who have gotten bent or gone astray, of people we love being away in far off places: The load that is bourn when poverty, or illness, or violence is experienced.

And some are the burdens that come from participation in the life of the nation: the burden of taxes, of complex and often burdensome laws, the burden of large standing armies which seem both a necessity and are amazingly expensive, the burden of the use of power, both political and military, a burden we feel in the moral questions that unending war and eternal vigilance seems to raise.

These burdens are real, and we feel them in our lives. And to them we add the burdens of religion – the burdens of complex moral and ideological questions posed by religious teachers and communities as if they were crucial to our lives: all sorts of burdens (they often are stated as questions, the answers to them being both necessary and heavy on our hearts) – shall we receive communion in both kinds? Does the fetus have a soul? Is it ever permissible to marry after divorce? Does it make a difference how you sign the cross, or if you do? Can you eat meat on Fridays? Is the doctrine of the Virgin Birth biblically based? What does it mean to have a biblically based morality? And on and on.

What makes these religious questions a burden is that so much is said to hang in the balance: most particularly the matter of judgment by God, and the state of our souls.

In their most brutal form all these burdens are crushing: And the question arises, can we ever be free? Or are we imprisoned in the pit of despair, in the pit of our burdens?

In today’s reading from the Hebrew Scriptures, the prophet Zechariah proclaims, “Rejoice… O prisoners of hope.” And therein lies our freedom: if we see ourselves as prisoners to our burdens, then we will be finally crushed by them. If we see ourselves as prisoners of hope, then, while we still bear the burdens of the day we live in hope, not fear. And the first hope is that the burdens will be lifted, that we will be refreshed, released, given rest.

It is such hope that is at the core of Jesus’ assurance: “My yoke is easy, and my burden light.” What he brings is not new religious burdens but a freedom, one that comes from knowing God’s love and his own for us: the freedom of knowing that we are valued, worth more than many sparrows. Such hope is central to the religion we now call Christian.

On the Statue of Liberty, whose real name is “Liberty enlightening the world,” are written these words:

“Give me your tired, your poor,

Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,

The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.

Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.

I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

The hope that this place, the United States of America, would be a place where the burdens of poverty, caste and class, violence could be lifted, where there could be the hope of a new beginning, is central to the promise of the thing we call America.

We have the right, no the duty, to demand of the Church in these days that it not be a heavy burden. We have the duty to demand that the State in these days not be a heavy burden. There is no place for doctrinal damnation and denominational snit-fits in our hope in the faith – the spiritually poor and wretched deserve better. There is no place for fearful living, poverty in the midst of plenty, grinding debt and unending warmaking in our hope in the nation – the huttled masses, the wretched, the homelss and tempest tossed deserve better.

The image of the lamp lifted beside the golden door is a powerful one: Many have hoped that America might be the new Jersualem, the stronghold in which we are not prisoners to fear, but prisoners of hope. Perhaps liberty stand here, a secular version of Jesus, who if we remember stands at the gate and says, “Come unto me all you that are weary and carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest.”

On this 4^th of July weekend, we ought pledge ourselves to a nation that is not a heavy burden, and to a church that is not a heavy burden:

Neither Liberty nor Jesus had that in mind.

Amen.

Walking apart, separately, alone, etc.

For some time now the phrase, "walking together or walking apart" has been used. It's first use seems to have been in the Windsor Report, but it has been widely used by those advocating a realignment of the Anglican Communion. The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada have been accused of threatening to, or deciding to "walk apart." In the June 30 addition of the Toronto Globe and Mail (brought to my attention by Harry Coverston), Jen Gerson wrote an article saying that the "Canadian church signals it is prepared to walk away from international body."

All this got me to thinking...what is this walk business? Without anyone actually mentioning the fact, walking together or walking alone, or even deciding to walk apart, are charged with negative value. But why is that? In a time when walking was how you got there, as well as a way of being present, Jesus walked sometimes with folk (in his preaching and teaching circuit), sometimes walked alone to go off to pray. His presence was sometimes revealed in a walking (as at the close of the story of the encounter on the road to Emmaus.) But in any event walking was able to be itself a destination as well as a means of getting to a destination. Thus walking with Jesus is like walking in the light, or walking in the day time. Walking with Jesus, being his follower, seems to be the core value concerning walking - thus walking in the faith, walking with Christ, etc.

So the imagery of "walking apart" gets the overlay of the image of walking with Jesus, and walking apart becomes ecclesiological language in which the real accusation is that ECUSA is walking away or apart from the faith in Jesus.

Writing in the secular press Jen Gerson at least got it right: to be prepared to walk away from an "international body" is quite different from walking away from the faith, or walking apart from Jesus. In fact quite the opposite might be true, that walking away of a "mere" international body (i.e., the Anglican Communion) might be walking toward the faith and with Jesus. The article quotes Archdeacon Feheley, "if this is where Canada believes that this is where the Holy Spirit is guiding us then other churches must respect that."
I suppose I am simply getting tired of ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada being accused of walking apart, out, separately, as if that was in and of itself wrong. Suppose the walking is indeed TOWARD and WITH God in Jesus Christ, as guided by the Holy Spirit.

Responses to the Three Questions

Earleir I asked three questions of the House of Bishops / House of Deputies list:

(i) Do the writers of the Windsor Report believe ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have done what was asked? I mean, the actual writers, and or Archbishop Eames.

(ii) The “found” proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative speaks of forming a new Anglican Communion body with headquarters in Lagos and Nassau, the Virtue interview with Archbishop Malango speaks of a headquarters in Alexandra. Both the found proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative and the Virtue interview have been disavowed by some elements wishing realignment. There has been an attempt to discredit both. There has been the effort discredit Pittsburgh’s Via Media group and David Virtue, both reporting on what they found. My question here is: Has Alexandria been mentioned as a location for a new Anglican entity before? By who? I believe I have heard this before, but can’t find a citation.

(iii) The heated exchange between Canon Anderson of the AAC and David Virtue led Virtue to denounce the AAC in the following words, “What irks Anderson and others of his kind is that they have lost the power to change anything. The power has moved to the Global South and the AAC is a succubus, drawing from the spiritual life blood of the south because he and the AAC have none in themselves. The AAC is a parasitic organization.” (in an article on Virtue Online.) My question is, are we seeing here the very changes that the Chapman Report predicted – that the AAC would give way to the Network and that both are only elements in a wider tag team match, in which a new entity, the Anglican Global Initiative (or something like it) claims to be an “orthodox” Anglican Communion and the Network folk look to that entity as the locus for their broader “Anglican” patriarchy, and in turn the basis for their claim to be the “real” Anglicans in North America.

About question one I received one answer. That person wondered why I had asked the question since it was evident to him that we had not done what was asked. However, no member of the commission has answered or is likely to until someone on this list forwards the question to them. Please do so. The question again is this: Do Writers of the Windsor Report believe ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have done what was asked?

I understand from an undisclosed source that Archbishop Eames believes we have (but perhaps that is wrong.) It would be good to hear from the writers.

About question two: Several persons pointed out that in an interview by David Virtue about a year ago with Bishop Wantland the bishop voiced roughly the same opinion and proposal. So the possibility of a "new" Anglican patriarchy has been discussed before. The fact that Alexandria is mentioned on both occasions is more than happenstance. I am inclined to believe that Virtue's interview was in major respects accurate, that the proposal for a Global Anglican Initiative was genuine, and that these possibilities stand in the wings ready to go if realignment does not take place within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada and if the Archbishop of Canterbury decides to invite us to Lambeth 2008. It might well be that later this year there will indeed be a meeting to "stage" the walkout either at Lambeth or before. Thanks to those who wrote me privately.

About question three: I have the assurance of several correspondents that what is unfolding is precisely the direction laid out by Champan. The strategy of several organizations, each meshed with others, all diverting the focus of outsiders from their constant aim - namely (as Canon Anderson likes to think of it) to win the war. At a time when making war, and making it badly, and for wrong caused, is both a clear talent of the United States and it damnation, I would advise Canon Anderson to choose some other imagery to bolster his sense of righteousness. War making language is bravado, but its mirror in the world is an obscenity.

Three Questions

I’ve been “off line” vis a vis the HoB/D list since the third of June. Prior to that I started making little errors in attribution, small asides that were unnecessary, and generally was too spiritually tense. So partially as a matter of spiritual discipline I stopped writing.

It was refreshing, even though such intervening matters as the publication of “To Set Our Hope on Christ,” the ACC meeting, the “found” proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative, the David Virtue interview with Archbishop Malango and the AAC slam of that, the ACC affirmation of “voluntary withdrawal”, the ACC proposal to include Primates “ex-officio” as members, etc. etc. all provide a treat for real ecclesiological fast food junkies. Although quiet, I could not help salivating every once and a while.

Well, having regained a bit of balance, and perhaps even a bit of perspective I’m glad to be back “on line.”

I have three questions:

(i) Do the writers of the Windsor Report believe ECUSA and the Anglican Church of Canada have done what was asked? I mean, the actual writers, and or Archbishop Eames.

(ii) The “found” proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative speaks of forming a new Anglican Communion body with headquarters in Lagos and Nassau, the Virtue interview with Archbishop Malango speaks of a headquarters in Alexandra. Both the found proposal for an Anglican Global Initiative and the Virtue interview have been disavowed by some elements wishing realignment. There has been an attempt to discredit both. There has been the effort discredit Pittsburgh’s Via Media group and David Virtue, both reporting on what they found. My question here is: Has Alexandria been mentioned as a location for a new Anglican entity before? By who? I believe I have heard this before, but can’t find a citation.

(iii) The heated exchange between Canon Anderson of the AAC and David Virtue led Virtue to denounce the AAC in the following words, “What irks Anderson and others of his kind is that they have lost the power to change anything. The power has moved to the Global South and the AAC is a succubus, drawing from the spiritual life blood of the south because he and the AAC have none in themselves. The AAC is a parasitic organization.” (in an article on Virtue Online.) My question is, are we seeing here the very changes that the Chapman Report predicted – that the AAC would give way to the Network and that both are only elements in a wider tag team match, in which a new entity, the Anglican Global Initiative (or something like it) claims to be an “orthodox” Anglican Communion and the Network folk look to that entity as the locus for their broader “Anglican” patriarchy, and in turn the basis for their claim to be the “real” Anglicans in North America.

Question 1 can be answered pretty straightforwardly by members of the Windsor Report committee.

Question 2 is a piece of detective work: Alexandria as the location of the head office.

Question 3 is the broader question of strategy, and thus the one most open to a variety of responses. I was interested to see that today David Virtue posted a more detailed opinion on VIRTUEONLINE Digest - 23 Jun 2005 to 28 Jun 2005 (#2005-32) and that Brad Drell has weighed in (see http://descant.classicalanglican.net/index.php?p=295 ).

The Studio

Well, I've taken some time to regroup and part of that is to find some space to write and paint, scratch and dream. The studio is an old converted (small) barbershop, sitting in the middle of an industrial park (notice the dump truck next to it with the beer keg on the top.) All the musing on the future of the Anglican Communion means nothing if the soul is not attended to.