The ACC Schedule...and the matter of additional input

In an earlier post to my blog I gave some unsolicited “Thoughts for Executive Council,” as they were about to meet to consider a response to the Primate’s request that we not send our normal delegation to ACC but rather send a group to “explain.” The publication of the ACC schedule prompts me to wonder if one of my concerns has become a reality.

I said in my post, “TEC has been specifically asked to provide further explanation. Its delegation should ask for clarification on the ground rules for interchange between the presenters and the sitting representatives of the ACC, and the Executive Council ought to offer such advice as it will concerning the extent to which the delegation will enter into debate, answer follow-up questions, respond to other written documents as may be brought into the discussion by ACC representatives, and the extent to which the ACC might or might not invite questions from resource persons they may gather for the occasion. The presentation should only take place with clearly agreed on norms for the presentation itself.”

The schedule for the consultation (which is what the presentation of representatives is being called) consists of three sessions: The first for the ECUSA presentation, the second for the Anglican Church of Canada and the third for “input from other Provinces.”

We know who the spokespersons are for ECUSA and the ACCanada. If this is to be a conversation between the delegates to the ACC and the participants invited from ECUSA and ACCanada, I assume “input from other Provinces” will be provided by the regular delegation of those provinces.

Perhaps that is precisely what is meant: Having listened to the two presentations the delegates from other provinces would in this third session respond and offer input, questions, etc.

But if the “input” consists of opinion, information and the like from persons other than the seated delegates, this is somehow an extension of presentation into debate, pro and con, with the ACC delegations hearing out ‘both sides’ of an issue, to some end not yet clear. First, I hope that this is not the case. If that is the case, it would be helpful to have such speakers clearly identified before the sessions begin.

It may be of course that everything is as it should be. My concern obviously is that we are going to seen repeated at ACC the gathering of leadership of various groups that gathered around the Primates Meeting, and that some of those people might become the “input from other Provinces,” on the grounds of having "both sides" represented.

Sermon on Memorial Day Weekend

This is Memorial Day Weekend.

We can tell because the traffic is awful, the beaches are full, and the streets are crowded, even in calm and peaceful ol’ Lewes, and Summer, the promise of these past months, is upon us! For all of this, we say Alleluia!

But it is Memorial Day Weekend for quite another reason than the Alleluia for the onslaught of what T.S. Eliot called “the unimaginable zero summer.” It is weekend and a day to remember all those, who for reason of war, will never have another unimaginable summer.

They have names, names that deserve our saying. We say them until our voices get hoarse, until we cannot fathom the depth of grief on grief, and at the same time the pride on pride. These are men and women who were no better than you or me, and died for reasons no better than ours, but who came to their end in a violence too stunning to think of, still just beyond our ken, we who live less precarious lives. And they lived precarious lives indeed.

Some of us have practiced writing the names of our country men and women who have died in war, in particular in the war in Iraq. We have written them on small scraps of white cloth, and we tie those scraps in long lines.

Today at 1 PM we will fly those small flags in memory, of them individually, yes, and of them all together, and in memory that war ends the lives of those whose summer has never really come, whose time was cut short. We will be in front of the Zwanendale Museum. Perhaps you will join us. The line of little flags, at 20 to the foot, will extend over 80 feet.

Were we to even try to include the names of other conflicts, the line would extend into the far distance. To include the 50,000 in the Vietnam War the line would extend another 2500 feet. The Korean War, and the Second World War, and before that the 1^st World War and on and on, would stretch the line far beyond Route One, six miles away.

And the names and flags for others killed from other countries, including 25,000 civilians in Iraq, and from other sides of the conflicts, would stretch beyond our wildest imaginations. Small flags fluttering on and on into the west.

It is hard not to want to make these deaths special, special beyond good ol’ uncle Henry who died in his sleep after years of battling to keep his small gas station going, or the Priest of the parish who lived and worked up until his last days when in his late fifties cancer took him, or the young woman who died in childbirth, having made love once and unprotected.

It is hard not to want to make these deaths special, and in one sense they are special. They are deaths out of normal sequence, assuming peace more normal than war.

What is special about these deaths is that we have set apart this time to remember them. And so we should, for they died because of a collective determination of our government, and sometimes our people, that some end was worth the risk of their lives. And they did indeed risk their lives, and gave them, sometimes bravely, sometimes like many of us, under duress.

It is always good to remember those who have died. Our church is in a cemetery and as we walk through the graveyard to the parish house we can see the names, and sound them out, and after a while, they become almost family. We call them by name. And so we do today. We hope they are in the peace of the Lord.

Yet here is a strange thing: Jesus says, “Not everyone who says, Lord, Lord, will enter the Kingdom of Heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father in Heaven.”

I believe and understand that the will of the Father is that we have life and have it abundantly. Warriors sometimes understand that. Some of them report in the midst of battle that everything about existence is heightened and more abundant: taste, smell, sight and sound, every sense pours in, and with it memories. Abundance of life is possible in the midst of terror death, when we are most aware, because most precariously balanced.

Warriors and poets and artists and lovers and risk takers and people on the edge and those who dance until four in the morning and those who laugh when others cry and cry when other laugh…in other words all those more or less on the edge of sanity… they tell us about abundance of life. And we hear it, and we stand in awe, but it is hard for us to move very far from our comfort.

Still I say, better a warrior, a poet, artist, lover, risk taker, edgy person, dancer, laugher, cryer…better that than a person unmoved.

The abundant life is life lived in the moment as if it were eternity. And in that moment we hear Jesus saying, (who is eternally present with us,) “Everyone who hears these words of mine and acts on them is like a wise man who built his house on rock…” The words Jesus is talking of here are the words of the Sermon on the Mount. They are available to us all, and they concern the wonder and aweful truth:

The will of the Father is not the same as doing good or being nice, or even doing one’s duty. The will of the Father is that we have life abundantly, and we know that by having faith in God in Jesus Christ, who will not leave us bereft.

“Have faith: be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” When Jesus says, “Everyone who hears these words of mind and acts on them,” we are reminded of the two essential requirements if we are to do “the will of God”: that we hear (with deep understanding) and act (with real intention.)

We can pray that those who have died in the violence of war kept the faith and found abundance in life.

We can pray for that for ourselves.

And we can pray for the end of war, and for the practice of other ways in which abundance of life can be realized. There are so many ways to find abundance in the fullness of understanding and intention, in the moment lived fully. There are others ways besides war.

Imagine what it would be like if we recruited young people to be poets and artists, risking all for the new vision, the new painting, sculpture, music that would win the hearts of all people everywhere. Perhaps we could have a draft if there weren’t enough volunteers.

Imagine conscripts in the ministry, risking all there.

What if we demanded that everyone serve two years in the pharmacy, dental or medical corps, and that these services were for the poor and the poor in spirit?

Paul reminded us in today’s reading to assure us that we are justified by faith and not by the works according to the law. Because of this, we realize that no matter the nature of our death, or challenges, or decisions, or our lives in their details of sin and glory, we are not finally left alone, hanging by the thread of our right or wrong action.

We confess with Paul that “all have sinned” and that includes us, and all those we remember this day. But we glory too in knowing that our sin is not the final say, nor is our right action in terms of the laws of Moses or any other law.

The final say is that God’s grace and mercy shown in Jesus Christ is the true source of our abundance. And the will of God (as I can see it now) is that we have the abundance of life that comes when we live not only for ourselves but for others, for Christ Jesus in others, and in the presence of Christ with us.

Amen.

Getting Straightforward Answers from the Network

Bishop William Swing asked a number of questions of Network Bishops in an essay he wrote for The Witness . To date I have not seen any answer to them, save the answers provided by volunteer sage David Virtue, in his article, “California: Revisionist Bishop Swing Gets Answers About Network , whose post is listed as an “Exclusive.” Virtue does provide some information on some of the questions raised, but of course he has no information at all about others and occasionally simply issues retorts instead of answers. I am not aware that he is a spokesperson for the AAC or the Network.

So, where are the answers to these questions from representatives of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes?

In particular I am interested in Bishop Swing’s question directed specifically to the Moderator of the Network: “It is stated that Bishop Duncan is on record as promising ‘to wage guerilla warfare on the Episcopal Church.’ Is this true?”

In the light of the Moderator’s comments on the steps of the Connecticut Capital, if the report of the ever present David Virtue is accurate, one wonders the extent to which we are dealing with guerilla warfare using tactics that involve a combination of disinformation and wild overstatement.

The words reported to be spoken by the Moderator are so extreme as to require that we question the reporter’s notes, the Moderator’s sense of judicious care in the use of language, or his sense of personal equilibrium.

David Virtue reported the Moderator to have said the following:

“There are wolves here that are set upon the flock. Does a shepherd come after the sheep? Does a shepherd seek to disable his flock? This too is a counterfeit and those who lead in this war are counterfeiters.”

“They (the Connecticut ‘six’) have struck a note all over the world that this counterfeit religious is being offered.”

“We are here to warn the people of Connecticut of this culture and to say that there is a counterfeit abroad in the land that looks like the real thing but when you try to spend it, it has no currency. It is a counterfeit.”

“of course we are loved by a God who is love and who sets us free, but we have a Holy Spirit that does not want to leave us where we are. Anything else is a counterfeit.”

“We have seen two revolutions – one 200 years ago that ended in blood and destruction. There was another revolution which said there was no King but King Jesus. It is the only liberating thing and it is why we are here. We are hear because of our faith, love and because of King Jesus, and we are here until he calls us home.”

The last two of these statements are forceful and quite attractively available to people on both sides of the issues at hand.

I too believe the Holy Spirit does not want to leave us where we are.

The last of these statements, even with its odd reference to the one revolution that ended in blood and destruction, is compelling. When the Moderator says that there is the revolution that is the “liberating thing” of no King but King Jesus, I remember the challenges to faithful living that in the past made me pay attention to the Moderator’s words.

I too believe with revolutionary fervor that we need throw everything on the Lord Jesus and that such action is a legitimate counter to various forms of cultural conformity.

However, these statements cut both ways: Perhaps the Holy Spirit does not want to leave us where we are – in a nation whose homophobic attitudes feed into the fears of Christian communities to the point where we will not or cannot listen to any reports of holy living in gay and lesbian relationships. Perhaps when we throw everything on the Lord Jesus we might realize our cultural conformities, and those of others in other parts of the world, are all deficient. The Moderator speaks with a clarity on these points that is well taken, howbeit available to those of us who disagree completely with his conclusions.

But the other statements, in so far as they really represent the Moderator’s words, are frighteningly overstated or misinforming. The charge that the religion of the Bishop of Connecticut and of course the Episcopal Church in its official decision making, is counterfeit is a far cry from supporting the six priests who in their own words say, “We are not here to witness against anyone, we are not at the cathedral or diocesan offices, we are not against (bishop) Andrew Smith…” They may not be, but the Moderator certainly is.

Counterfeit: If Bishop Smith is counterfeit, he is counterfeit of what? The Truth in Jesus Christ? If that then Bishop Smith is not the real shepherd, or the representative of the real shepherd, but rather is like the thief, perhaps the evil one, the Devil. That is where these words lead. They don’t say it, they suggest it. They suggest that Bishop Smith is the Lie masquerading as the Truth.

This is over the top. If Virtue has misquoted, so be it. The matter is on his head. If the Moderator has indeed said these things he is speaking near the edge of sanity.

In order to regain his composure the Moderator must either bring charges of conduct unbecoming a Bishop against Bishop Smith (for surely if he is counterfeit it is unbecoming) or must return to a less excitable form of address, one in which wild accusations of counterfeit religion and counterfeiting leadership are dropped for less inflammatory words.

The two concerns: the one voiced by Bishop Swing about “guerilla warfare” and the other about the over the top attacks on Bishop Smith are related. At some point the warfare language of the Moderator and the leadership of the American Anglican Council and the wildly corrosive language accusing Bishop Smith of being counterfeit come together. Either the second is an example of the first, guerilla warfare in action, or the second is a sign of corporate, and even perhaps personal, megalomania, for which the romantic notion of guerilla warfare, like the crusades, is the vision justifying the behavior.

Here are some more questions to add to those of Bishop Swing’s, for which straightforward answers are needed:

(i) Is the Moderator indeed speaking for the parishes and dioceses of the Network when he speaks this way, or is he speaking for himself alone?

(ii) Bishop Swing asks if the Moderator really said he was promising to “wage guerilla warfare on the Episcopal Church”? If so, are we to take his over the top and slanderous statements in Connecticut as the ecclesiastical equivalent of propaganda broadcast? If not, when will we hear to the contrary?

(iii) And if the statements from the State Capital steps are truly reported, and if the effort was not propaganda, what was it? The words of someone near the edge of rational discourse or the words of someone about to bring charges? For, if these are not serious words, they are disturbed.

These are not easy times, and they require careful words. Archbishop Eames has made a plea that liberals and conservatives both tone down the language of discourse. I agree with him. At the same time there is no health letting false charges simply dangle out there. For the intentionality behind the charges leads us in one of several directions: trial, libel or concerns for stability, and perhaps in more than one direction at once.

Where the Odds Are, There Will the Vultures Gather.

Well, the game’s in play in the Episcopal Church and action is in the challenges to the ownership of property. Were there bookies attending to such matters odds could be taken on the outcome of this or that local congregational battle to claim ownership of church, furnishings and funds, thereby denying that they are held in trust for the Diocese, or in turn for the Episcopal Church.

It also appears there are attempts being made in some dioceses to disengage from the canons of the Episcopal Church concerning property ownership. This, of course, raises yet another problem, one that has to do with diocesan withdrawal from the Episcopal Church, selective allegiance to or enforcement of the canons as they exist, and questions about whether or not a diocese can secede from the union of dioceses that is the Episcopal Church. Book making on these efforts is considerably more complicated.

It remains of course to question when, if ever, the Episcopal Church, by way of Executive Council, its agents, etc., or the office of the Presiding Bishop, will bring any of this to a head by challenging the continued viability of a Diocese that contravenes the clear intent of the canons. If a diocese by its own canonical changes disassociates itself from the National Church and its canons when it feels the Episcopal Church has operated contrary to Anglican values, or when it wishes to hold its property as a Diocesan or parochial entity, that diocese needs to be confronted with the reality that it has abandoned the faith and trust put in it by the Episcopal Church itself, and those persons who have done so are no longer the representative of the Episcopal Church in the Diocese question.

Thomas Bushnell’s excellent article, “What would +Rowan do?” is a good read on the future of the struggle between the realignment crowd and the Episcopal Church. In particular he spells out with great clarity why the realignment crowd is going to work hard to find ways to take property with them. The last sentences of his article says it succinctly: “This means that all their noise is not an attempt to achieve some other (essentially impossible) result, but rather an attempt to simply carry away as many toys as they can in the end. It is up to the rest of us, who don’t intend any leaving, to decide how many toys we are willing to let them steal.” Another interesting blog concerning the issues of ownership of property is A Voice in the Fundamentalist Wilderness , lots of good commentary.

The Moderator of the Network has already indicated in a Living Church article that his view of the future includes law suits: “It’ll be very interesting time. I mean, we don’t want to go to court, but it’s quite clear the Episcopal Church is always ready to go to court, and this time I think they might not be so willing to go to court, because we think there’s every reason they’lllose.”

It is reported that in the Diocese of Albany, a resolution is being proposed that states,

“RESOLVED, that the Canons of the Episcopal Diocese of Albany be amended by adding the following Canon, to be numbered 7.5:

Property of any kind, either real or personal, held by the Trustees of the
Episcopal Diocese of Albany, or any Parish of the Diocese, or any corporation
established by the Diocese, or any corporation established by a Parish of the
Diocese shall be subject to no trust or claim from any body or entity outside of
this Diocese, and all trusts or claims asserted by The Episcopal Church in
the United States of America on such property are expressly denied.”

This of course runs counter to Canon 7 section 4 and 5 which read,

“ Sec. 4: All real and personal property held by or for the benefit of any Parish, Mission or Congregation is held in trust for this Church and the Diocese thereof in which such Parish, Mission or Congregation is located. The existence of this trust, however, shall in no way limit the power and authority of the Parish, Mission or Congregation otherwise existing over such property so long as the particular Parish, Mission or Congregation remains a part of, and subject to, this Church and its Constitution and Canons.

Sec. 5

The several Dioceses may, at their election, further confirm the trust declared under the foregoing Section 4 by appropriate action, but no such action shall be necessary for the existence and validity of the trust.”

Well, there it is: The resolution pending in the Diocese of Albany is raised in contradistinction to the canons of the Episcopal Church, denying the applicability of Canon 7 section 4 & 5.

Beyond the clear violation of Canon 7, the proposed resolution in the Diocese of Albany has made me think of another issue: The ultimate counter to Canon 7:4-5 is congregational. It is the argument that the congregation has control of its property. That may serve the realignment crowd in some short term way, but would any reconstituted pure North American “orthodox” church put up with a radically congregational approach to property, trust funds, etc? I don’t think so!

What the realignment crowd wants is for us to think that Canon 7:4-5 ought not inhibit congregations trying to take (as Thomas suggests) all the toys, a wildly congregational approach. At the same time the realignment crowd wants to say it is upholding Anglican Communion sensibilities that we are not a congregational church at all, and that decisions about our life, faith and common practice are not local, congregational or even national in context.

Well, good friends, you can’t eat the cake and have it too. Either the congregational rights to property are affirmed, in which case you are supporting a congregational polity, or the Canon stands, in which case property is held in trust for the Episcopal Church.

The desire to BOTH back local congregations taking their property and funds out of the Episcopal Church, and to maintain that Anglican Communion parishes do not operate outside a larger church frame, leads to an untenable position, one which is as deranged as is the whole effort to try to take the place of the Episcopal Church by claiming that it has ceased to be the “real” Episcopal Church.

This whole thing is an insult to the faithfulness of Episcopalians. If there are those who cannot agree, fine. We must learn to let go of them, bid them fair forward and move on ourselves. But if they intend to take property and funds on the basis of congregational “fairness” or diocesan disavowal of the decisions of the Episcopal Church in General Convention assembled, we ought to call it what it is: dissembling and two-faced.

Selah!

Another Odd Day in Anglican-land, American Style.

So, let me see... there have been a variety of statements by Anglican "instruments" of unity about how dreadful it is for one Bishop to open up shop in another's diocese. And the news today? Well it appears that a congregation in North Carolina has left the diocese, its priest has been declared as having abandoned the ministry of this communion (meaning the Episcopal Church) and he and the congregation have opened up shop, same place same time, as a parish within the Ugandan Diocese of North Kigezi All of this is reported in The Living Church online addition. So much for moratoria on stepping in ecclesiastical cow patties outside your own farm.

Where is the call to accountability on this one?

And, for something entirely different, The Episcopal Partnership for Global Mission (EPGM) unanimously agreed to enact a moratorium until after the 2006 General Convention on welcoming new groups or acknowledging the departure of existing ones during its annual meeting held April 25-29. This too is reported in The Living Church online addition. What in the world are we supposed to do with this one? Dioceses are the basic unit, if you will, of episcopal churches. If we start weeding them out from one another on the basis of being troubled by them, and accepting only those we agree with, the handicap is too great to make betting on unity a reasonable proposition.

The list of moratoria grows, like tulips in the spring of the year. With the onslaught of the hot months the leaves will fall off the plesantries and we will be left to bind up the now yellowing leaves.

But then again the trouble with moratoria is that if they are really about stopping the clock, it only works if there is some sweet chance to start the clock again. And, of course, moratoria make running the race that is set before us quite impossible.

O well.