Aiya Iluvatar

Kendall Harmon and Susan Russell on McNeil Lehrer

This clip on you tube aired on McNeil Lehrer last night. This is interesting, because the two people interviewed represent for me the disconnect between the extremes and the middle of the church. If you've followed this blog, you remember my despair at General Convention when it seemed almost as if the left and right had joined together to defeat any sort of qualitative response to the Windsor Report. Susan and Kendall's debate seems to me to epitomize the problem. Their vision of the perfected church is more important to them than the actual church, which is made up of fallen sinners. I have a lot more sympathy with Susan's position - I still can't figure out how the election of a bishop in New Hampshire can "oppress" a person in a conservative diocese in South Carolina. However, her veiled comment about possibly leaving the church if the bishops acquiesce to the Primates' requests left me saying, "And how is she on any higher moral ground than Kendall?" I think most of us in the middle hold a view of the church that could include both Susan and Kendall - it is too bad that both seem that they would "take their ball and go home" if the game is not going their way.

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, Anglican Communion, christianity, episcopal, religion, Windsor Report, youtube

The Primates' Communique

The Primates Final Communique and its attached schedule came out yesterday afternoon. The communique itself is descriptive, simply describing the views of all those at the meeting. The schedule is where the rubber hits the road - the actual recommendations of the meeting. The most positive part of the entire document is that NO WHERE does it consider the idea of setting up an "alternative Anglican province" within the USA. My guess is, the primates were all concerned with the implications for their provinces if that precedent were set. It is clear that Katherine Jefferts Schori is a full member of the Primates' Meeting (More than that - on the standing committee) and that the communion will not attempt to set up an alternative primate with juridical authority in her place.

That being said, the way forward is difficult. The first provision in the schedule is for "A Pastoral Council" to be made up of two members elected by the primates, two members appointed by Katherine Jefferts Schori, and one chair appointed by Rowan Williams. This pastoral council would implement the "Primatial Vicar" scheme as developed by +KJS and others as well as try to deal with "breakaway" congregations. Several people, such as Father Jake see this as handing over power outside the Episcopal Church. I don't see it in that light - the council would have moral, as opposed to juridical (legal) power. Any recommendations by that council would have to be adopted and implemented by the governance of the Episcopal Church.

The more difficult part is "On Clarifying the Response to Windsor." The primates accept our intentions from General Convention 2006, but they wish more clarity. They set a deadline of September 30th for the House of Bishops to make two unequivocal responses. Before I get to those responses, I have to voice once again the frustration I have with the Anglican Communion having no concept of how our polity works. No matter how many times we say, "but we have TWO houses in our government, and the bishops can't make decisions for all of us," they continue to ignore any part of our governance beyond them. Why not ask our Executive Council? It represents both houses! Oh well - back to the meat and potatoes.

The second request is probably the easier:

2. confirm that the passing of Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention means that a candidate for episcopal orders living in a same-sex union shall not receive the necessary consent (cf TWR, §134); unless some new consensus on these matters emerges across the Communion.

This was my understanding of what B033 did, although my guess is that this is a temporary moratorium, to be revisited at the next General Convention after the Lambeth Conference. My guess is the bishops will most likely be able to do this.

The first request is a bit stickier:

1. make an unequivocal common covenant that the bishops will not authorise any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions in their dioceses or through General Convention (cf TWR, §143, 144)

Of course, it depends on what you think they are asking for here. The exact wording is "authorize any Rite of Blessing," that is, for bishops to not tell their priests they are authorized to perform such rites or to give them liturgies for it. Jim Naughton points out that this does not ask bishops to "ban" blessings, simply not to authorize them, which has been the status quo in many dioceses for years.

Of course, there's a double standard going on here, as one poster at Preludium points out:

So the primates want Lambeth 1.10 to be the standard??

"This Conference: commends to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality; in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in LIFELONG union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage;"

In order to be fair - the Church must stop blessing second marriages and get rid of bishops and priests who are divorced and remarried.

Until they do THAT, this is just bigotry against baptized gay and lesbians. Period.

A very valid point.

But for me, there's a wider question. The "Listening Process" mandated by the same Lambeth resolution appears to be actually moving somewhere, and there is expected to be some activity on this front at Lambeth 2008. I know the American GLBT community is chomping at the bit for same-sex blessings and the ability for people in them to become bishops, but we need to look around the world. In many places (most notably Nigeria) GLBT people are being actively persecuted, not simply passively discriminated against. Our presence in the communion gives hope to those people. As long as we are in conversation, there is hope that things might change for them. If we abandon the communion (or allow it to abandon us) then the Akinolas win a huge victory and the GLBT voices in the rest of the communion will be swallowed up and silenced. I can only countenance us holding the moratoria until the next General Convention, when we can once again evaluate whether it is worth the price or not. We should have clearer answers by that time.

The question is, "Can we hold off for a couple of years in order to have an important conversation take place that might have real, physical impact on GLBT persons undergoing active persecution around the world?" I personally think it is worth it, but then I'm not in the persecuted minority. I realize how precarious and paternalistic that position can be.

If I were the House of Bishops (Cue for readers to run screaming...), I would create a resolution stating:

1. We thank the primates for their work, for their recogniation of the hard work of General Convention, and for their recognition of +KJS as our duly elected primate.
2. We receive gratefully the Communique
3. Something once again explaining our polity and that the House of Bishops alone cannot make long-standing decisions for the entire church.
4. Accepting the pastoral council scheme, making it clear that the council only has the authority to reccommend, and that any primatial authority exercised by the primatial vicar is deputized from her. She retains all juridical authority (What little she actually has, that is). Anything else would be unconsitutional. Maybe the HOB should send this part to the Executive Council for consideration?
5. Stating that there will be no further authorization of rites of same sex blessing, but preserving a conscience clause for those already doing so. It needs to be noted that there would be no way for a bishop to be disciplined for authorizing them, as the resolution from GC2003 stated such rites are within our praxis. Since GC2003 stated this, it would be impossible to bring a bishop up on charges. There is simply no way to make a bishop stop authorizing same-sex blessings under our current resolutions, so the Anglican Communion needs to understand that no matter what the House of Bishops says, there will still be some bishops doing so. This moratorium would need to be stated to extend until GC2009, when we can evaluate the work of Lambeth 2008.
6. Stating that they believe that B033 does mean that consents will not be given to bishops-elect in same-sex relationships. That's always been my reading. Once again, I think this will be revisited at GC2009.
7. Emphasize how important we believe the listening process under Lambeth 1.10 is, and articulate some reccomendations of our own as to how Lambeth 2008 might address it.

Despite my misgivings about what is being asked, I think that at this time, forbearance and patience is still required of us.

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, Anglican Communion, episcopal, Primates' Meeting, religion, Windsor Report

Draft for Anglican Covenant Released

A couple of interesting developments today from the Primates' Meeting. First of all, Katherine Jefferts-Schori was elected to the Standing Committee of the Primates Meeting, giving her a large amount of influence on decisions made between meetings and agenda setting for future meetings. Some on the right are claiming that the position was "bought" with the funding the American Church gives to the communion, but I rather think it has to do with JKS's amazing amount of grace and decorum. In any case, it puts the lid on any ideas that the Episcopal Church might be "Kicked Out" of the Anglican Communion at this meeting. It looks like the extreme right is in some amount of despair. Kendall is trying to do damage control.

Of longer lasting importance is the release of the draft from the Covenant Design Group, which you can find here. The document is one that the primates are asked to agree to in principle, understanding that some primates cannot commit their churches to anything without further approval (KJS for example.) I don't have a problem in general with a covenant. After all, we have a long document that describes exactly how we relate to the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, but only two sentences that describe how we relate to the Anglican Communion.

Most of the draft covenant looks fine, but I have some issues with the powers the Primate's Meeting is to be accorded. The first indication are the contrasting descriptions of the Primates' Meeting and the Anglican Consultative Council.

"The Primates’ Meeting, presided over by the Archbishop of Canterbury, assembles for mutual support and counsel, monitors global developments and works in full collaboration in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications.

The Anglican Consultative Council is a body representative of bishops, clergy and laity of the churches, which co-ordinates aspects of international Anglican ecumenical and mission work."

So the Primate's meeting works in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters and the ACC works in ecumenical and mission work exclusively? This does not reflect the history of Anglican decision making. In the past, even before the Primates' Meeting came into existence, many sticky matters were taken to the ACC (most notably that of women's ordination.) While American Episcopalians think that bishops are important, I think it is very hard for us to think of them as the SOLE arbiters of moral and doctrinal matters. We believe the laity and other clergy should be invovled. A lot of this has to do with our history with the Episcopate.

In addition, a suggestion is made for future discernment:

Each church commits itself to seek the guidance of the Instruments of Communion, where there are matters in serious dispute among churches that cannot be resolved by mutual admonition and counsel:

1. by submitting the matter to the Primates Meeting
2. if the Primates believe that the matter is not one for which a common mind has been articulated, they will seek it with the other instruments and their councils
3. finally, on this basis, the Primates will offer guidance and direction.

I am pretty uncomfortable with this - the newest and least representative collegial instrument of unity being given both first and last say in doctrinal issues? If you add this in with the monkey business at the last ACC meeting suggesting more power be given to the primates, we see the instruments becoming less representative of anyone other than the highest echelons of the clergy. As an American Anglican, this makes me nervous. I would be much more happy with issues being taken to the joint standing committees of the Primates and the ACC, who could decide which body would better handle the question.

I hope this is a VERY rough draft....

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, Anglican Communion, episcopal, Primates' Meeting, religion, Windsor Report

Communion Sub-Group Report

Exciting Blog Entry title, eh? Well, it refers to the equally-exciting report released out of the Primates Meeting in Dar es-Salaam. It is the subcommittee of the Primates' Meeting and Anglican Consultative Council commenting on the Episcopal Church's response to the Windsor Report to date. You can find the report here in all of its exciting, nuanced language. Here's a quick summary of how they evaluated the work of General Convention 2006.

They

1. They acknowledge that, "It is clear to this group that in the period following the Dromantine meeting, the Episcopal Church took the Windsor Report and the recommendations adopted by the Primates extremely seriously." The "eyes right" bloggers have been saying that this was not true, but I think I'll defer to those on the committee. (Note how I'm already using the epiScope designations!)

2. In regards to the ordination of Bishops, despite the noting of the different language adopted by the convention since "moratorium" was deemed to be canonically impossible to enforce, "The group believes therefore that General Convention has complied in this resolution with the request of the Primates."

Kendall Harmon, notable "eyes right" blogger, makes the strange claim that B033 (the resolution dealing with this issue) is currently being used by the left to hold up or even defeat the consent process for the new bishop-elect of South Carolina. I'm not sure where he gets this. No one objects to his "manner of life." What is objectionable is that he has actively fomented schism, so it is hard to believe that he will uphold the "doctrine, discipline and worship of the Episcopal Church" as he would be required to do at his ordination.

The other thing I see very little attention paid to is the two elections we had for bishops in Newark and San Francisco. These are the two most liberal dioceses in the Episcopal Church. Each had an opportunity to "thumb its nose" at General Convention by electing a GLBT candidate (which is what the right predicted), and each declined, with deputies citing General Convention as a factor in their decisions. It seems to me we have a moratorium in effect if not in name. While this does not make me HAPPY, its probably what is necessary at this time in our life as a communion. My hope is that a new understanding may emerge when people in the Communion finally figure out that G. Robinson is indeed not turning the church into a partner-swapping society.

3. In regards to same-sex blessings, the report states, "it is significant that General Convention declined to take further a number of resolutions which had been drafted to support their (rites of same-sex blessing) introduction." "While this states the position at national level, the group noted that decisions affecting the use of public rites have more usually been made at diocesan level." "It is therefore not at all clear whether, in fact, the Episcopal Church is living with the recommendations of the Windsor Report on this matter." This is right-on. In my reading, the Windsor Report does not call on the national church to make a decision on this, but asks each bishop individually to make this decision and to be prepared to stand by the consequences.

4. In regards to the expression of regret, it is noted that while some voices in the communion demanded "repentance," the language of Windsor was indeed "expression of regret." "Taken with the apparent promise not to repeat the offence (Resolution B033 discussed above) we believe that the expression of regret is sufficient to meet the request of the primates."

5. There is a parting shot, which I read to be at those crossing diocesan boundaries, "We recognise that the Windsor Report was addressed to the whole of the Anglican Communion. We have to express our concern that other recommendations of the Windsor Report, addressed to other parts of the Communion, appear to have been ignored so far."

Despite my chagrin at the attempts from both right and left to throw a spanner in the works at GC, I always felt we had come up with the best response such a diverse and short-lived legislative body could come up with. It's nice to see people from around the Anglican Communion agreeing.

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, Anglican Communion, ecclesiology, episcopal, Primates' Meeting, Windsor Report, religion, theology

Casualty Calculations & The Dixie Chicks

One of the most striking things about the current "war" we are engaged in in Iraq is the vast improvement in medical care that the wounded receive. Improvements in battlefield medicine have resulted in a rapidly decreasing KIA rate. In WWII, 30% of US casualties died. In Vietnam, the percentage dropped to 24%. The rate in Iraq is 10%. (Figures from here)

While this is something to be commended, it means that the number of soldiers coming home with severe injuries that will require years if not a lifetime of recuperation is much higher. Several authorities have commented that the current VA is not prepared for this problem. The cost could run as high as $350 billion.

Even more vexing is the question, "Does our KIA count really reflect the cost in life?" First of all, there are the Iraqi casualties, which are now well over 100,000. While Americans seem obsessed about how many causalities we are taking, it does beg the question, "Are the Iraqis better off?" I tend to say no, considering things are degenerating.

In regards to the American casualties, I posed the question to Micky the other day, "Considering the change in the wounded to death ratio, I wonder how many deaths we would have had in Vietnam-era terms?" Interestingly, the next day, AKMA had worked on the same question.

"So let’s do some rough-and-ready figuring. Last time I checked, the Pentagon has acknowledged 3,072 U.S. military deaths. During the same time, the Pentagon acknowledges 22,834 soldiers wounded; under the Vietnam standard for wounds-to-deaths ratio, that would correspond to 8,155 combat deaths, more than five thousand more than have actually died. That’s using a pretty narrow accounting of wounds and deaths, too." (He's using figures from here.)

The cost to our soldiers is much higher than simple figures would indicate.

I guess the other frustration is with the American public. I opposed this war from the beginning, not out of a sense of extreme pacifism, but out of an evaluation that the tenets of just war doctrine were not met in even a cursory way. From a military history standpoint, It seemed like a difficult mission with little thought about how we would deal with the aftermath. But so many of the American public were supportive of the war, and continued to support it even as the Bush administration bungled it far beyond my worst fears. Then the casualties started to come in and people changed their minds. I've got to ask, "3,072 Killed and you're changing your mind? We lost 47,000 soldiers KIA in Vietnam and 291,000 in World War II. If you believed in the cause, were you not ready for the cost?"

If you don't have the stomach for casualties, don't go to war in the first place. Once the dogs of war are unleashed, controlling them is very difficult.

A strange transition, but the sweep of the Grammys last night by the DIxie Chicks was very satisfying to me. The persecution that the Chicks suffered for simply speaking their opinion (which, as I understand, is something every American is guaranteed to be able to do under the Constitution) was part of the same Post-911 narrow-minded myopia that the Bush Administration used to sell Iraq. If we criticized our president, we questioned American superiority, which apparently was worthy of death threats.

A refreshing breeze of humility seems to be blowing through America. I hope it grows to a wind storm.

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, christianity, Dixie Chicks, episcopal, ethics, iraq, military, religion, war

Laughing Out Loud

From Reverendfun.com

Technorati Tags: christianity, humor

We're not Binary

An article appears in Fulcrum's newsletter that tries to describe the various parties within the Episcopal Church. To summarize:

1. Extreme Liberals who see Gene Robinson's fight as a battle in the cause of Justice and are unconcerned about effects on the Anglican Communion.
2. Social Liberals who support Gene Robinson's consecration, but are more concerned with relationships in the Anglican Communion.
3. Social Conservatives who support the recommendations of the Windsor Report but wish to remain within ECUSA.
4. Social Conservatives who are hoping and waiting for a "Communion Sponsored Solution" to allow them to jump ship.
5. Extreme Conservatives who have already left ECUSA.

I think this is a little more representative of how things actually stand. If you ask someone who voted to confirm GR, you'll have liberals who voted for him because of "justice" and conservatives who voted for him because of "Autonomy." If you ask someone who voted against, you might find a conservative who voted due to "Clear scriptural teaching" or a liberal who did so because of "Concern about the Anglican Communion." Those who would say there are only two sides to this issue are simplifying things to an amazing degree, usually in order to advance their agenda as a "pure" one.

The "Anglican Center" is diverse and messy. There are those who would like to see things more clean and tidy, but the history of Anglicanism has always been an untidy one. For me, that's been the attraction. Should the Anglican Communion become dogmatic beyond the traditional bounds of Anglican orthodoxy (best found in the Chicago-Lambeth quadrilateral) I will have a lot fewer "Bonds of Affection" for it.

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, episcopal, religion

New Episcopal Blog

There's a new blog in town, epiScope. It's run by the Episcopal News Service with the following description:

"Mostly we'll track references to the Episcopal Church in online media ... provide links to full documentation and source material ... do a little "rumor control" where it's needed ... provide a moderated forum for public discussion of substantive issues raised by stories and opinion pieces... and provide a way for the wider Episcopal Church, the Anglican Communion, and the general online public to interact more directly with ENS and Episcopal Life writers and others at the Episcopal Church Center in New York and on the road.

Using a blog, rather than relying solely on ENS or Episcopal Life, permits us to work virtually in "real time" on breaking stories, instead of waiting for a full story to be written and edited and a page to publish on the main website. We'll always do a complete followup and link back to epiScope's pages once it's published."

Ayia Iluvatar is listed as an Episcopal Blog under "Eyes Center" (as opposed to "Eyes Left" or "Eyes Right") along with Entangled States, Anglicans Online and The Anglican Centrist. I'm pretty happy to be there.

I wish them the best of luck. It will be nice to have the ENS in the blogosphere in addition to us talking heads.

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, blogging, episcopal, web, religion