Aiya Iluvatar

Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Alb!

I heard the news today that South Carolina has requested "Alternative Primatial Oversight."  I'm still not sure what that is, since a primate is "first among equals" and anyone who is not an Episcopal bishop would not by definition be an equal.  Nor am I clear what regular duties a primate performs for a diocese.  However, the whole thing about South Carolina declaring itself independent did seem familiar... oh yeah!  I was listening to the first volume of Shelby Foote's series on the American Civil War on audible.com today.  Sing with me now!

(To the tune of "Bonnie Blue Flag.")

We are a band of churchmen
And native to the soil
Fighting for the "orthodox"
With treasure blood, and toil
And when our views were threatened,
The cry rose near and far
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Alb
That bears a single star!

Refrain:
Hurrah!
Hurrah!
For conservative views, hurrah!
Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Alb
That bears a single star.

As long as the Episcopal Church
Held apostolic trust
Like friends and brethren,
Kind were we, and just
But now, when liberal treachery
A realignment tries to bar,
We vest ourselves in the Bonnie Blue Alb
That bears a single star.

First gallant Fort Worth
at GC made the stand
Then came South Carolina
And took her by the hand
Next, quickly came San Joaquin
and Pittsburgh with their Czar
All vested in the Bonnie Blue Alb
That bears a single star

Ye men of valor gather
Round the banner of the right
call for alternative primacy
and join us in the fight
Duncan, our future archbishop
And Virtue statesmen are
Now vesting in the Bonnie Blue Alb
That bears a single star!

David+

Statement from the AOC

Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury has released a statement, 'Challenge and Hope" for the Anglican Communion.  The spin has begun.  Does it see a united way forward as this AP report claims, or does it admit the inevitability of schism as this Times of London report says?  Also see the NY Times article. 

For various commentary, see:
Fr. Jake - Liberal
Kendall Harmon  - Conservative
Nick Knisely - Moderate
and a very interesting and somewhat scathing commentary from the Archbishop of Cape Town. 

Some personal reactions upon a first reading of the text:

1. I'm glad that he acknowledges the "Extremely hard work" that we did at General Convention, but  I am disappointed at how guarded he is.  I think if he could have personally experienced the agonizing process we went through, he might be a little more appreciative, especially considering the amount of what could be termed "interference" from the Church of England that occurred.  Read Mark Harris for more on this.
2. I appreciate his candor - for the first time it appears that he is getting down to "brass tacks."
3. Although he claims to not be passing judgment on the actions of General Convention, he claims, "The recent resolutions of the General Convention have not produced a complete response to the challenges of the Windsor Report."   Seems like a judgment to me.
4. Some of the general theological language is very nice, as you would expect.  ex. "The only reason for being an Anglican is that this balance (Between evangelical, catholic and liberal wings) seems to you to be healthy for the Church Catholic overall, and that it helps people grow in discernment and holiness."
5. Although I support the idea of a covenant, and I understand where he is going with a two-tier idea of "constituent" and "associate" churches, what that means for a divided province like ours is very vague, especially when he still holds up the idea of keeping current boundaries. (Some conservative bloggers are already adovcating for adding "constituent" to the name of the Anglican Communion Network, even though there is no indication that this langauge will be officially taken up or what the covenant will even look like.)
6. I continue to be disappointed by his ability to criticize the American church for our struggle with the Windsor Report while not speaking out on diocesan boundary crossing by "Global South" bishops.  We have a mission of the Church of Bolivia (huh?) in our diocese.  Our bishop appealed to the AOC months ago, but to my knowledge, nothing has been said or done.
7. Williams tries to claim that the basic problem here is not same-sex relationships, but ecclesiological problems that would be exacerbated by other issues as well (i.e. Lay presidency).  This seems to me the same as the claim that the American Civil War was not about slavery, but about states rights.  Although the "states rights" claim about the Civil War is technically true, states rights would not have come to the loggerhead it did without the issue of slavery.  It is a case of a catalyst working for so long that it is no longer separable from the original reactants.  This is also the case in our current debate.  Trying to separate them is probably impossible at this point.

I think the biggest problem here is that there is a basic disagreement about the nature of gays and lesbians.  Anglican Communion documents claim that gays and lesbians are not to be victimized as per the Primates' meeting 2005 communique:

"We also wish to make it quite clear that in our discussion and assessment of the moral appropriateness of specific human behaviours, we continue unreservedly to be committed to the pastoral support and care of homosexual people.  The victimisation or diminishment of human beings whose affections happen to be ordered towards people of the same sex is anathema to us.  We assure homosexual people that they are children of God, loved and valued by him, and deserving of the best we can give of pastoral care and friendship."

Williams speaks of the necessity to promote civil rights for gays and lesbians while still holding back on same-sex blessings:

"It is possible – indeed, it is imperative – to give the strongest support to the defense of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage, to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation, and still to believe that this doesn’t settle the question of whether the Christian Church has the freedom, on the basis of the Bible, and its historic teachings, to bless homosexual partnerships as a clear expression of God’s will."

Even more interestingly, arch-conservative bishop Robert Duncan agrees with Williams on this in a letter,

"Bishop Duncan also lauded Archbishop Williams’ call to the church to 'give the strongest support to the defense of homosexual people against violence, bigotry and legal disadvantage.' 'I, of course, could not agree more with the Archbishop in calling for the protection of those whose affections are toward the same sex. Discrimination or violence against them as persons should be abhorrent to Christians, regardless of our understanding of what the church can and cannot bless,' said Bishop Duncan."

This is in direct conflict with the CAPA statement after General Convention signed by Nigerian primate Peter Akinola:

"We have observed the commitment shown by your church to the full participation of people in same gender sexual relationships in civic life, church life and leadership. We have noted the many affirmations of this throughout the Convention. As you know, our Churches cannot reconcile this with the teaching on marriage set out in the Holy Scriptures and repeatedly affirmed throughout the Anglican Communion. "

The Nigerian church has publicly endorsed civil legislation that denies gays and lesbians right of assembly and association. 

OK, I can buy the argument that belief in full civil rights does not necessarily imply the need to sanction blessings in the church, but it seems apparent that many in the Communion do not support basic civil rights for gays and lesbians, despite the rhetoric of the Primates.

I appreciate living with differences, but is this really an acceptable difference?  Can we really agree to disagree on whether gays and lesbians are human beings and therefore possessed of certain rights?

There is a lot of difference I can agree to live with, but +++Rowan needs to find a backbone here.

David+

 

Re-Post from Father Jake

I'm re-posting this response from a thread over at Fr. Jake - It sums up what I believe the effect of B033 will be.  I don't think any of us thought it would appease the Duncan/Akinola crowd.  It was the "middle" of the Anglican Communion I was concerned with.

---

There are a lot of posts on this thread that would seem to imply that the B033 vote, for all of the pain and ambivalence it causes, was for nothing. I would reply, "Don't be so sure."

Yesterday I posted, and I would reiterate today, that nothing the GC could have done would have appeased Akinola or Duncan or the AAC, etc. Had GC passed a resolution clearly utilizing "Windsor" language they would have claimed that those who passed it didn't really mean it. Proof for this: Gene Robinson is still NH's bishop, same-sex blessings will still happen, none of the PB candidates were orthodox enough, etc. I am quite certain that they would have denounced anything passed.

The B033 resolution was intended, I believe, to appeal to those in the middle, both in the Anglican Communion and at home in the Episcopal Church. And I would be willing to predict that it will work on both accounts. There were several bishops in 2003 who voted in favor of Robinson's consecration who would not do so today--Peter James Lee and Geralyn Wolf come to my mind. My bishop, Tom Shaw, one of the most liberal, may also take a more conservative approach this time around, even as he has long been a supporter of GLBT folks. And I would suspect the new PB would fall into line as well. No doubt these are just a few who will be convinced. Likewise in the Anglican Communion. The goal was not to convince the radically orthodox, but moderate Anglicans world-wide from such places as Scotland, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, etc. Rowan Williams will not want to alienate these constituencies any more than he would want to see the Global South group split off. Any dramatic move against the Episcopal Church, following the B033 vote, would cause such outrage that the Communion would simply crumble. Williams doesn't want this and will, I predict, do any and everything he can to prevent it.

As I wrote yesterday, the Episcopal Church has many friends throughout the Communion. We have simply to encourage them to add their voices to this global conversation. Duncan and his ilk will not be happy, but then he's not really in charge, despite what he may think to the contrary....

As a post-script, I would note that I do not know how I would have voted. I have stongly liberal/progressive credentials as a priest from Mass and an EDS alum. No one would question my commitment to GLBT inclusion. I am sure that PB-elect Schori's address was quite convincing. And it may be the case that she spent a lot of good will capital by taking this action. However, there will be many others in our church, those in the middle, who will see this as a sign of true leadership. Only time will tell.

My advice to all of us would be to keep our church, its GLBT members, the Communion, and our new PB in our prayers. The other side is full of anxiety, which is exemplified in their many missives to the communion. For they did not get what they wanted. They wanted the church to reject Windsor's recommendation completely. The Episcopal Church did not comply. Desite their rhetoric, they fear B033 will in fact be enough.

So, now it is time to do as one of the bishops said on Tuesday evening: put the anxiety back where it belongs, on the shoulders of the ABC and the Communion. We have done as the Arbp of York requested and shown the marks of the crucifixion. It is now up to others.

Whatever happens, all will be well. Swedish bishop Kriser Stendahl has said that as Christians we are in bondage to hope. Let us all place our faith in that hope.

The Rev. Matthew Cadwell
Diocese of Massachusetts

This IS my church!

A very interesting last day on the floor today, especially considering my experience yesterday.  After worship, the Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold called a joint session of the houses, during which he essentially told us that we needed to pass something that addressed the “refrain” request of the Windsor Report regarding elections to the episcopate for people in same-sex relationships.  The final form as introduced in both houses is here.

It became interesting when we adjourned back into separate house meetings.  A procedural motion had to be introduced that would allow us to open up discussion on a subject we had already discussed and voted down (See Tuesday’s post.)  Immediately, the extreme right (hereafter abbreviated as ER) started trying to make procedural barriers to us reconsidering.  For more on that, see later on in the post.

In any case, we considered the motion.  Presiding Bishop-Elect Schori asked to address the house.  In her address, she told us how much she did not like the resolution, but felt that it was important to be passed without amendment. She committed herself to the GLBT community but told us she needed this in order to open up a space for communication within the Anglican Communion. This changed the entire tone of the house.  After a lot of soul-searching and some debate, we did this at great personal cost to many members of the house.  It was a fine hour for the diverse center.  Many deputies rose to express anger and frustration at having been manipulated from the extremes the previous day.  (See Nick Knisely's blog for more on this.)

What has amazed me the most today has been what I have to perceive as the utter hypocrisy of those on the extreme right.  Those on the extreme left can be difficult, bull-headed, etc., but the things I have seen coming out of the other side in the last day is truly amazing in it's duplicity.  Even the more conservative members of our deputation were disgusted by the time we left.

Yesterday, the right was a well-oiled procedural machine.  Deputies moved from deputation to deputation during the entire convention.  They even had people in the gallery doing communications with the "outside."  Despite all the rhetoric about wanting the Episcopal Church to “uphold the Windsor Report,” when it came down to it they were the ones that called for a vote by orders (making the legislation more difficult to pass) and then voted AGAINST the Windsor resolutions, claiming that they were not sufficient.  Today they tried everything they could do with parliamentary procedure to avoid reconsideration of the Windsor resolution, they again moved for a vote by orders,  and I’m not sure of it, but I believe they voted against it despite the strengthened language.  There’s no logical sense here – even if a resolution is not everything you want, if goes in your direction, you would think you would take it.  It would only make sense if even though you claimed you wanted the Episcopal Church to comply, you didn't REALLY want it to.

The answer to all this came literally within a couple of minutes of  us passing the resolution from the House of Bishops.  Two of the ER bishops released a statement saying that we had failed to comply with Windsor, that they were willing to do so, and that they were the faithful remnant of the Episcopal Church.

It is obvious to even a casual observer that this moment had been scripted since before the convention.  My suspicion is that the ER had planned their entire legislative agenda in order to defeat the Windsor resolutions so that they could execute their schism at the most opportune time, claiming that the Episcopal Church had shown we had no desire to stay in the Anglican Communion.  They never intended to stay with us no matter what we passed.

Unfortunately for them, the raft of Windsor legislation actually DOES IMHO appear to meet the basic requirements of the Windsor Report.  Canterbury has released a guarded, but thankful statement. We have taken the moral high ground by conceding more than most thought we could or would. We’ll see how this all turns out, but I am very hopeful at this point.

However, this was not a time for celebration.  This compromise was bought at great cost for many in the GLBT community.  There are a lot of broken hearts.  I hope that the Anglican Communion will respond in an appropriate way that will have made this all worth it. 

David+

IS this my church?

Today was a very distressing day in our house.  The house of Deputies defeated A161, which called for a moratoria on the "making of bishops" whose manner of life would pose a challenge to the greater communion.  This is an essential part of the response to the Anglican Communion that would indicate that we wish to remain at the table.  What it would have meant in effect would have been a pause in the ordination of GLBT Clergy to the episcopate until the next General Convention in 2009 after the Lambeth Conference in 2008.  None of this debate has anything to do with priests or deacons - there is a subtext that this is a diocesan option.

So in short, not a lot is being asked practially (there are not GLBT candidates currently up for ordination to the episcopate), although a lot in principle.  One deputy who served on the special committee got up and "outed herself" as a lesbian, then asked the convention to vote for the resolution even knowing what the cost was.  One of our representatives from the Anglican Consultative Council asked us to vote for it.  Ian Douglas, who teaches mission at one of our most liberal seminaries asked us to do it.  Visiting Anglicans who supported our actions in 2003 but were hurt by our failure to consult asked us (not directly, mind you) to vote for it.  We defeated it in a vote by orders.

What was more disturbing was how people voted. Both the extreme left and the extreme right voted "no" in a rather unusual alliance.  The only way I can interpret that is that they are both disinterested in a Via Media or middle way.  The right would like to see these defeated so they can then claim we "failed to honor Windsor."  The left is unwilling to compromise their perception of justice even a bit.  Both sides would rather maintain the purity of their position than enter into a costly relationship that means compromise for the sake of Christ. 

IS there a place left for me as a moderate in the Episcopal Church, or do you now have to choose between two dichotomies?  If so, it simply means that the modern American Political culture has overtaken the diverse church I love and we are unable to act with prayerful compromise like our forbears have done at General Convention for a couple of centuries.  Some of this may have to do with generational theory, but I'm not going into that here.

Luckily, the deputies are not the entire General Convention.  The Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, has called for a joint session of the houses tomorrow.  I believe he will gently tell us how much is at stake and how we need to give our new female presiding bishop SOMETHING to take to the Anglican Communion since she's already at a disadvantage.

Stay tuned.....

David+

I Choked...

I actually got to speak at General Convention today - AND CHOKED!  Actually, what happened is that I had been crafting (and rehearsing) a speech for three minutes, and the special order changed the limit to two minutes.  Therefore, I ended up trying to summarize my thoughts and panicked when the "yellow" light came on indicating waning time.  I ended up completely leaving out the bold part below, which really was the crux of my argument.  Instead, I sounded kind of like someone saying, "Some of my best friends are gay...."   Arrgh!  Oh well.  I've learned that such addresses simply must be full-text.

What I meant to say is below - it refers to Resolution A161 - Election of Bishops

I stand before you as a very conflicted moderate.  I understand that to many of our Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered brothers and sisters in the Episcopal Church, any affirmation of the Windsor Report will be perceived as a denial of your full inclusion in the church.  I also recognize the historical peril of a straight, married white male speaking in favor of resolutions that might be perceived as asking a minority to bear further suffering for the sake of the church.  Thank you Anti-Racism training…

The matters before us are not simple or cut-and-dried.  Anyone who believes that we can become of one mind over issues of human sexuality is either fooling themselves, or comfortable with the age-old protestant sin of schism.  If we are to preserve our beloved Episcopal Church and any semblance of Anglican unity, we have to decide how to live with long-term tension.  We have to forge anew a Via Media.

Even those in the Anglican Communion comfortable or supportive with our actions in 2003 have expressed reservation about our failure to consult any Anglican body before proceeding with Gene Robinson’s consecration.  If we are to take our commitment to interdependence seriously, we must do something to make space for conversation.  I believe the resolutions from Special Committee 26 are important offerings for this process.  Their passage would be an important step towards reconciliation.

One speaker at the special hearing Wednesday night used the metaphor of a bridge, saying that a bridge needs to reach all the way across a chasm or it is pointless.  I would submit that from an engineering standpoint, bridges have to be built from both sides.  We as a church should no longer be comfortable to sit idly by while our Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered brothers and sisters are shut out of the councils of the Anglican Communion.  If we are to build a bridge from our side, at great personal cost to many of our members, our Anglican brothers and sisters must commit to moving forward with the listening process,  and respect the dignity of every human being.

Mr. President, I ask the House of Deputies to vote here to make space for conversation.  I have no desire to serve the conservative Episcopal Church, or the liberal Episcopal Church.  I wish to serve the broad diverse Episcopal Church where I came to know the compassionate love of our savior Jesus Christ.  I look forward to the time when the ministry of reconciliation can become the church’s true obsession.

We take up further debate in the morning....

David+

General Convention Report

A report from General Convention.  I'm not going to say much since there are several bloggers who are covering it ad-nauseum.  I  do want to say that so far in the House of Deputies and in the Special Committee dealing with the Anglican Communion resolutions, there has been a lot of very respectful dialog and serious listening done.  For a day-by-day report of what's going on, I recommend AskThePriest author Frank Logue's blog Irenic Thoughts.  For general news, go to the Episcopal News Service web page, which includes nightly webcasts.

If you would rather have your news flavored with spin, choose your flavor: Liberal - Father Jake or Conservative - Titus Online.

David+
                   

Wow! Diet Coke Fountains!

As talked about on NPR.  What can you do with over 100 two-liters of Diet Coke and over 500 Mentos?   (The embedded video will take a while to load.  If it doesn't work, click here.)

Cute, Cuddly, Fuzzy Hate Speech

I received this anonymous postcard from someone in Louisville, presumably because I am a deputy to General Convention.  I've scanned both sides....


It's a somewhat interesting combination - am I to assume that the sender is the one pictured?  If so, would this be the majority position of felines?

If people on the "extreme right" are wondering why they aren't being heard, maybe it's due to the media being chosen - it might have been more effective on the back of a post card with Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer being burnt at the stake....

I do have to wonder if the sender is even Episcopal considering that it refers to the "Episcopalian Church" instead of the "Episcopal Church."  If not, maybe just someone with poor grammar.

David+