The Episcopal Majority

A Final Word

2008-05-26T22:39:00.004-05:00

On August 9, 2006, when The Episcopal Majority blog came online we wrote the following:

It is clear that the heart of Anglicanism is under attack in America and it is time for a broad coalition of faithful Episcopalians to defend it. To that end, we have established this Web page to help continue the dialogue and to call for a national meeting to be held in Washington, D. C., on November 3 and 4, 2006. The purposes of this Internet gathering place and of our meeting will include the following:
Affirming the orthodoxy of the Episcopal Church in the United States and its adherence to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral
Affirming the traditional Anglican value of national autonomy and toleration of views involving matters of church discipline
Affirming the inclusive nature of the Episcopal Church where people actively work to get along
Opposing all attempts at home and abroad to curb or demean this Church, dismember it or evict it from the Anglican Communion
Establishing ties with national churches or groups abroad who are sympathetic to the Episcopal Church.

Since that dialogue began, many faithful Episcopalians have joined their voices to speak in defense of our beloved Church. At the national gathering in the fall of 2006, in Washington, D. C., representatives of nearly 50% of all dioceses gathered to show their support for our new Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and to consult with one another about developing strategies to respond to the charges being leveled at the Episcopal Church.

Much has happened over the past two years – most of which you will find chronicled on this blog. Our Presiding Bishop has shown wisdom and courage as she has decisively moved to defend the Church while offering the opportunity of reconciliation with those who have chosen to leave. The Episcopal News Service and other offices of The Episcopal Church are speaking out clearly on the issues confronting us.

Though there are still a relatively small number of parishes and dioceses who remain committed to schism, it is clear that the good heart of the Church is safe. Though the "strife is not o'er," it is becoming clearer that theirs is a dying cause; there is no groundswell for schism, and their numbers are not growing. We are no longer fearful, and certainly not fearful of a rightwing takeover of our Church.

We believe that the Rev. Lauren R. Stanley has beautifully summed up the condition of our Church in the previous and last posting on The Episcopal Majority blog:

News Flash: The majority of Episcopalians in the United States voted to stay in the Episcopal Church today.
They did so by going to church, by receiving Communion, by participating in God's mission and ministry, by praying, preaching and acting on God's holy word, by working with youth and the elderly, by doing all the myriad things that they have been doing through the history of the church, and by proclaiming, in many and varied ways, the love of God for all of God's beloved children.

With those words in mind, The Episcopal Majority will close its blog as of today. Though we do not intend to continue publishing, we will keep the blog online so that our friends may access the many fine articles to be found here.

We offer thanks to all who have contributed to this effort. You have made this a rich source of information for many people and have given a voice to those who felt they had no voice. Our deepest thanks are reserved for Lisa Fox who has presided over this blog from the beginning – who has written, edited, as well as patrolled the blogosphere for two years. And we thank our friend the Rev. Tom Woodward, who joined Lisa last winter.

As we close this venture, we continue to pray:

Gracious God, we pray for your holy Catholic Church. Fill it with all truth, in all truth with all peace. Where it is corrupt, purify it; where it is in error, direct it; where in any thing it is amiss, reform it. Where it is right, strength it; where it is in want, provide for it; where it is divided, reunite it; for the sake of Jesus Christ your Son our Savior. Amen.

Faithfully yours,

The Rev. David K. Fly
& The Steering Committee of The Episcopal Majority

The Rev. George C. Bedell
Ms. Lisa Fox
The Rev. Mark Harris
Ms. Judy Wright Mathews
The Rev. Tom Woodward

The Episcopal Church Isn’t Dying

2008-02-22T19:02:00.004-06:00

This column was distributed February 7 by the McClatchy-Tribune News Service. We received a copy from the Rev. Lauren Stanley and are proud to post it here.

About the Author: The Rev. Lauren R. Stanley is an appointed missionary serving in the Diocese of Renk in the Episcopal Church of Sudan. She is serving temporarily in the United States. Also see her essay, "The Vast Majority," published last week at the Daily Episcopalian.

The Episcopal Church isn’t dying
By Lauren R. Stanley
McClatchy-Tribune News Service

NEWS FLASH: The majority of Episcopalians in the United States voted to stay in the Episcopal Church today.

They did so by going to church, by receiving Communion, by participating in God’s mission and ministry, by praying, preaching and acting on God’s holy word, by working with youth and the elderly, by doing all the myriad things that have been doing through the history of the church, and by proclaiming, in many and varied ways, the love of God for all of God’s beloved children.

Why is this a news flash?

Because if you read the newspapers or follow events in the Church online, all you read about are the congregations that are splitting up, about priests leaving, about lawsuits in which the Episcopal Church and its dioceses are being forced to defend the canonical structures of the Church in order to keep the property of the Church.

And if that is all you read – in newspapers or online – no one would criticize you for thinking that the Episcopal Church in the United States was the verge of collapse.

So it is a news flash to find out the Episcopal Church is not teetering on that verge, and that the majority – the vast majority – of members have decided not only to stay, but to get on with God’s mission and ministry in this broken world.

Which just goes to prove, once again, that bad news still sells, good news does not.

The bad news is, some parishes, some priests, some individuals, and at least the leadership of one diocese have left the Episcopal Church. Which certainly is newsworthy.

But the good news far outweighs that bad news, for the good news is that the majority of Episcopalians in this country are staying.

The latter bit of news certainly is not exciting, and as one who spent more than two decades editing newspapers, I can tell you, excitement outsells the same-old-same-old every single day of the week.

But excitement doesn’t trump the truth, and the truth is, the Episcopal Church is in fine fettle, thank you very much, and those of us who are staying would like the rest of the world to know this.

We would like you to know of the extraordinary ministry we are doing: that every single day, some Episcopalian somewhere is heading off on a mission trip; the poor are fed; Sunday School lessons being prepared; children are cared for; prisoners are visited; prayers are said; sermons are prayed over; choirs are practicing music ancient and modern; the ill are comforted; advocacy for God’s kingdom is taking place; baptismal preparation is held; relationships are built; marriages solemnized; and loved ones are being buried in both grief and celebration.

We who engage in these ministries celebrate that fact every single day, and while it would be nice to get more coverage of this work, no one is doing this work for the coverage in newspapers and online. We are doing this work because this is what God has called us to do, and that’s good enough for us.

Part of what makes us stay is the realization that despite all the controversies revolving, in great part, about sexuality and gender, the majority of the Church, and the majority of the Anglican Communion to which the Church belongs, does not care one whit about those controversies.

The Rt. Rev. Musonda Trevor Mwamba, Bishop of the Anglican Diocese of Botswana, said as much recently at the convention of the Episcopal Diocese of North Carolina. The majority of Anglicans around the world, he said, do not care about the disputes over sexuality, or about the possible split in the Anglican Communion.

“The truth of the matter is … we must understand the majority of African Anglicans, about 37 million, are not bothered by the debate about sexuality,” Bishop Mwamba told the North Carolina convention. “The majority of African Anglicans … have their minds focused on life and death issues, like AIDS, poverty … and not on what the church thinks about sex or the color of your pajama pants. Villagers who live on less than one dollar a day aren’t aware this is going on.”

You can read, in the newspapers or online, nearly every single day about some parish or priest or even a diocese leaving or talking about leaving the Episcopal Church. And if that is all the news you read about the Episcopal Church, it surely would seem that it is falling apart, and that its demise is imminent.

Which is why you need to read the following again:

NEWS FLASH: The majority of Episcopalians in the United States voted to stay in the Episcopal Church today.

Anglican Covenant, Round 2

2008-02-08T00:55:00.000-06:00

A new draft of an Anglican Covenant was released yesterday in London. You can find a copy of the Saint Andrews draft here, an important appendix here and the accompanying communiqué here. The group also issued commentary to the draft here.

The good folks at the Episcopal Cafe did a fine job in the initial reports. Mark Harris provided an early analysis.

We were also pleased to receive this notice from the British group, the Modern Churchpeople's Union.

Press Release - for immediate use

The proposed Anglican Covenant (The St Andrew's Draft) would only make the church more autocratic and outdated, says the Modern Churchpeople's Union (MCU).

'It takes the Anglican out of Anglicanism and there wouldn't be much left', says the MCU General Secretary, Jonathan Clatworthy. 'Until now we have lived together respecting differences of opinion. This Covenant would mean every time there's an objection someone will lay down the law'.

The wording of the Covenant itself is a clear improvement on previous drafts. But the sting is in the tail. An Appendix to the Draft Covenant sets out ways in which members of the Communion could be disciplined.

Members of the Anglican Communion would be asked to commit themselves to accept a 'request' from the Archbishop of Canterbury or the global Primate's Meeting. If they refused the request they could ultimately be expelled from the Communion.

MCU objects to the Covenant because it would centralize decision-making and reduce the traditional autonomy of Anglican Provinces. Just one Anglican Province could object to developments elsewhere and so changes could only be made at the speed of the slowest. Churches would become increasingly out of date.

MCU believes that the threat of expulsion will impoverish Anglican church life. The short timescales envisaged are likely to stunt discussion and suppress the search for consensus. The character of the international 'Instruments of Communion' which currently bind the Communion together would be changed as they take on semi-judicial roles.

The practical result of the St Andrew's Draft Covenant would be a much more centralized, authoritarian and unadventurous Communion. It is likely to magnify disputes and to turn them into judicial processes. It is likely to leave the Church less able to face the challenges of the modern world.

=========

MCU Contact Details:
Jonathan Clatworthy, 0845 345 1909, 07729 886272, office@modchurchunion.org
Paul Bagshaw, 01777 702515, PaulBagshaw@gmail.com

Background
The St Andrew's Draft Anglican Communion is at: http://www.aco.org/commission/covenant/index.cfm
Further comments on this Draft will be published at: http://www.modchurchunion.org/Covenant.htm
where there are links to MCU responses to earlier drafts.

The Modern Churchpeople's Union is an Anglican theological society established in 1898. It is committed to promoting liberal theology and to the open-minded search for truth.

This email is from the MCU: http://www.modchurchunion.org/
Blog - Only Connect - http://modernchurchblog.blogspot.com/

CONTACT
Jonathan Clatworthy, General Secretary
MCU Office, 9, Westward View, Liverpool, UK L17 7EE • Tel: 0151 726 9730 • Email: office@modchurchunion.org

Unity and Diversity in the Lambeth Conference

2008-02-04T20:17:00.000-06:00

Editor's Note: This is the 4th and final part of Christopher Webber's essay on the history of the Lambeth Conference, continued from here. Information about the author and resources appears in Part 1.

Part IV: Living Together as a Truly Global Community
by Christopher L. Webber
Ordination of women a central and divisive issue
Study of homosexuality called for (1978)
“Impaired communion” recognized (1988)
Role of primates discussed

This view of Lambeth Palace was taken from across the Thames River in 2004, courtesy of Wikipedia.

1978

When the bishops met again, in 1978, women were already being ordained to the priesthood, not only in the Episcopal Church (U.S.), but also in Hong Kong, New Zealand, and Canada. Photo at right: July 29, 1974, marks the first ordinations of women to the priesthood in the United States, an event referred to as the “Philadelphia Eleven” when eleven women were "irregularly" consecrated. Photo courtesty Episcopal News Service.

Eight other provinces had agreed to do so or saw no objection. The bishops, faced with deep divisions on the issue, saw their role as pastoral care, not leadership; rather than take a potentially divisive stand, they pleaded for patience and unity. In an awkward sentence, unworthy of Cranmer’s heirs, they expressed the hope

(a) that Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches would see the holding together of diversity within a unity of faith and worship is part of the Anglican heritage; (b) that those who have taken part in ordinations of women to the priesthood believe that these ordinations have been into the historic ministry of the Church as the Anglican Communion has received it; and (c) that we hope the dialogue between these other Churches and the member Churches of our Communion will continue because we believe that we still have understanding of the truth of God and his will to learn from them as together we all move towards a fuller catholicity and a deeper fellowship in the Holy Spirit.

Matters of gender had not disappeared from the 1978 agenda, and the bishops reported that they viewed the issues surrounding human sexuality as being “complex.” There was a need, they said, “for theological study of sexuality in such a way as to relate sexual relationships to that wholeness of human life which itself derives from God, who is the source of masculinity and femininity.” In particular, while they “reaffirm[ed] heterosexuality as the scriptural norm,” they recognized “the need for deep and dispassionate study of the question of homosexuality, which would take seriously both the teaching of Scripture and the results of scientific and medical research.” They recognized as well a need for pastoral concern and dialogue. Such dialogue had already begun in some places, but not enough. Twenty years later, it would cause angry debate. Thirty years later, it would be dividing the Communion and calling the very continuance of the Lambeth Conference and even the Anglican Communion into question.

Perhaps “dispassionate study” of homosexuality was still possible, but the issue of women’s ordination was beginning to cause serious divisions. 58 years after the conference had said that women might be ordained only as deaconesses, the conference was asking for patience and sensitivity and the possible provision of alternative ministry for those unwilling to accept women as priests and bishops.

1988

Resolution #1 of the 1988 Lambeth Conference revealed the depth of the divisions that were occurring. The bishops could speak openly of “the present impaired nature of communion.” If women were ordained as bishops, this would throw the problem into “sharper focus.” They asked that provinces respect the decisions of other provinces, whether they accepted them or not, and maintain “the highest possible degree of communion with the provinces which differ.” The Archbishop of Canterbury was asked to appoint a commission to keep track of developments. Meanwhile, all were told of the need “to exercise sensitivity, patience and pastoral care towards all concerned.” But bishops facing intractable divisions were “encouraged to seek continuing dialogue with, and make pastoral provision for, those clergy and congregations whose opinions differ from those of the bishop, in order to maintain the unity of the diocese.” How separate pastoral provision would maintain unity was not explained.

Polygamy continued to present a problem. The bishops were less ready to restrict the access of polygamists to the sacraments than their predecessors a century earlier who had been willing to baptize only wives of polygamists and even those only “in some cases.” Now the bishops felt that “a polygamist who responds to the Gospel and wishes to join the Anglican Church may be baptized and confirmed with his believing wives and children” if they promise not to marry again so long as any of his wives were alive and if the local community were agreeable.

As the Anglican Communion became more truly a global community, the conference found itself asked to express opinions on the situations in Namibia, Lebanon, Palestine, Northern Ireland, military governments in Latin America, and Sharia Law in the Sudan. Naturally, also, as ecumenical relationships grew, the conference needed to express its opinion of relationships with Baptist, Orthodox, Roman, Pentecostal, Methodist, Reformed, United, and Lutheran Churches. Small wonder, then, that in spite of the request made by the previous conference for “dispassionate study” of homosexuality, there was no resolution on that subject in 1988.

1998

By 1998, the ordination of women to the priesthood and episcopate was a fait accompli.

Several women had already been consecrated bishops and were present at the 1998 Lambeth Conference. Photo courtesy Louie Crew.

And small wonder, then, that the Lambeth Conference of 1998 found itself involved in prolonged and angry debate on the subject of sexuality. As to homosexuals, the bishops committed themselves “to listen to the experience of homosexual persons” and “assure them that they are loved by God and . . . full members of the Body of Christ.” Homosexual practice was rejected “as incompatible with Scripture," but “irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex” was condemned. Was it implied that there could be rational fear of homosexuals? A resolution referring to homosexuality as a “kind of sexual brokenness” and calling on bishops who ordain homosexual persons to repent was defeated. However, the bishops found that they could not “advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions.”

But how was unity to be preserved where such divisions existed – or how might it be regained? The resolutions concerning respect for diocesan boundaries first adopted over a century earlier were reaffirmed. Bishops could not be a sign of unity while encouraging division. But the bishops seemed to be looking for stronger leadership and central authority. The conference noted that the primates had begun to meet separately and expressed the hope that the primates might “exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters.” The primates should meet more regularly, the bishops believed, but the Anglican Consultative Council was fine as it was and should not be asked to do more. The bishops seemed to defer to the primates, whose meetings “should carry moral authority calling for ready acceptance throughout the Communion.”

Summary

A summary of such a tumultuous history is all too likely to reflect the concerns of the moment and the viewpoint of the individual historian. This review has focused on two central issues: changing understandings of gender and sexuality, and the balance between diversity and unity. In recent years the emergence of new “instruments of unity” has raised new questions as to the relative significance of Lambeth, primates, and the Consultative Council with a critical underlying issue of the relative power of clergy and lay people. [Sidenote: We have also published Archbishop Peers' comments on the first meeting of the primates in 1978. Archbishop Daniel Coggan presided both at the Lambeth Conference and the 1978 primates meeting.] In regard to the concerns of the moment, the initial hesitancy of the bishops meeting at Lambeth to pronounce on anything at all rapidly shifted until, in the latter part of the 20th century, there were few things on which the conference did not have an opinion. The initial insistence on dispersed authority left a vacuum which the primates now seem determined to fill.

In regard to gender and sexuality, it is remarkable to observe the radical change in the positions the bishops have taken. In 1888, polygamists were not generally to be baptized; in 1988, they could be. In 1920, prophylactics were an “invitation to vice"; by 1958 they were “acceptable.” Until 1948, divorced persons were never to be remarried in church and those who remarried in civil ceremonies were not to be admitted to communion; by 1958 this frequently stated position had been replaced by the suggestion that a procedure for defining marital status was needed and the separate churches and provinces should work on it. No more has been heard of that, and the Anglican provinces have found ways not only to give communion to the divorced and remarried, but also to perform second and even third marriages in the church.

All this seems to raise again the central question of the Anglican ethos: Can a Christian community exist without a central authority and narrow definitions of doctrine? For centuries, royal authority and unquestioned cultural traditions enabled Anglicanism to survive and even thrive without such authority and definition. A world-wide community, existing in widely different cultures, no longer has these built-in supports. This might be an advantage if Anglicans were prepared to accept the variety of styles, theologies, liturgies, and polities that have resulted. One might imagine a community in which Christians were willing to accept strong episcopal authority in some places and strong lay leadership in others, narrow interpretation of the Bible in some societies and a more liberal interpretation in others. Why should African bishops have to dress like Victorian prelates and Japanese Christians be required to worship in Gothic buildings? Yet these cultural trappings have been accepted and the more significant differences that might reflect a truly encultured gospel have left us badly divided and on the verge of dissolution.

A careful review of our history, even one narrowly focused on some aspects of the Lambeth Conference, might lead us to be less sure of ourselves, more ready to listen, and more willing to leave a generous room for difference. If so many definitive statements of Lambeth have proved so subject to change, how sure should we be of our own current pronouncements? Might it be better to recognize that we might be wrong again and that we have yet to succeed in striking a proper balance between Biblical authority and cultural conditioning? Is it possible that we serve God’s church best when we do least to divide ourselves and do most to center our common life on a pattern of worship that draws us closer to the redeeming love of God?

These questions, it would seem, ought to be asked and should have been asked long ago.

Unity and Diversity in the Lambeth Conference

2008-01-30T21:29:00.000-06:00

Editor's Note: This is the 3rd part of Christopher Webber's essay on the history of the Lambeth Conference, continued from Part 2 here. Information about the author and resources appears in Part 1.

Part III: Coming to Grips with Unity and Diversity
by Christopher L. Webber
Marriage seen as primarily for procreation (1930)
Definition of Anglican Communion adopted (1948)
Growth in understanding of marriage (1958)
Consultative Council given broader membership and mission

This image of Lambeth Palace is an 1834 engraving from the Government Art Collection.

1930

When the bishops next gathered at Lambeth Palace, in 1930, their views on marriage remained those of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, which was still the standard book in most parts of the Communion. That book stated, and the bishops re-affirmed, that “the primary purpose for which marriage exists is the procreation of children.” If parents were no longer enthusiastic about large families, the bishops called for “deliberate and thoughtful self-control . . . in intercourse.” At this conference, there was no condemnation of prophylactics, although the bishops still believed that limiting or avoiding parenthood should be effected primarily by abstinence. Now, however, they resolved that “where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence . . . other methods may be used” – though not for selfishness or mere convenience. What those other methods might be – when the use and sale of prophylactics was condemned – was left unclear, but at least the bishops seemed to recognize that the world was changing and the 1662 Prayer Book might not be the last word on the purposes of marriage. But there was strong opposition to this statement and, though it was approved by a 3-1 margin, 67 bishops voted against.

1948

This photograph during the Lambeth Conference (from July 3, 1948) shows (L to R) Bishop Hallwood of Hong Kong, Bishop Chang of Fukien or Fujian, Bishop Percy Jones of Sierra Leone, and Assistant Bishop R. W. Jones of Wales. Photo by Edward G. Malindine, Topical Press Agency.

World War II created another obstacle to meeting, and it was 1948 before the bishops assembled again. Inspired, perhaps, by the recently created United Nations, the 1948 conference was the first to attempt a definition of the Anglican Communion, stating that:

The Anglican Communion is a fellowship, within the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted dioceses, provinces or regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, which have the following characteristics in common:
they uphold and propagate the Catholic and Apostolic faith and order as they are generally set forth in the Book of Common Prayer as authorised in their several Churches;

they are particular or national Churches, and, as such, promote within each of their territories a national expression of Christian faith, life and worship; and

they are bound together not by a central legislative and executive authority, but by mutual loyalty sustained through the common counsel of the bishops in conference.
At the first Lambeth Conference the question of creating a “Spiritual Court of Appeal" was raised, and the next conference suggested creating Voluntary Boards of Arbitration for Churches to which such an arrangement may be applicable, but nothing was done. The 1897 Conference called on the Archbishop of Canterbury to institute a “consultative body” to provide information and advice on request, but nothing seems to have been done as result of that call. The 1948 meeting finally defined a Consultative Council made up of bishops that would serve as the continuation committee of the conference and empowered it to deal with any matters referred to it by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but without legislative or executive powers. It seems unlikely that the Council met during the next ten years.

The Conference also affirmed “that the marriage of one whose former partner is still living may not be celebrated according to the rites of the Church, unless it has been established that there exists no marriage bond recognised by the Church.”

1958
By 1958, the Lambeth Conference was ready to look at marriage in a much more positive way and rooted its statements carefully in a positive theology. Marriage, they said, is a “vocation to holiness” and the idea of the family is “rooted in the Godhead.” “Consequently," the bishops agreed, “all problems of sex relations, the procreation of children, and the organisation of family life must be related, consciously and directly, to the creative, redemptive, and sanctifying power of God.” Family planning, they now agreed, is “a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God.” Instead of condemning contraception, they now believed that methods “mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience” were acceptable.

Concentrating as they were on the family, the bishops had little to say about women’s ministry outside the home except to say that “fuller use should be made of trained and qualified women, and that spheres of progressive responsibility and greater security should be planned for them.”

1968
But women were planning for themselves, and when the bishops met again, in 1968, the issue of women’s ordination was upon them and they were not ready. The Lambeth Conference expressed the opinion that the theological arguments for and against the ordination of women to the priesthood were “inconclusive,” and asked that the member churches study the matter carefully and seek advice from the Consultative Council before doing anything rash.
Photo at right: The Rev Dr Florence Li Tim-Oi, the first woman ordained to the priesthood in the Anglican Communion, was ordained on 25 January 1944 in the diocese of Hong Kong. Several other provinces were considering the ordination of women to the priesthood. The ordination of Li had a somewhat special character; the Diocese of Hong Kong said it was necessary under wartime conditions because there were no male candidates available. Li formally resigned her orders after the war, but resumed her ministry once the ordination of women was
recognized in Anglican Churches. Photo courtesy of Anglican Journal.

The bishops also took note of the recent papal statement condemning all methods of birth control except abstinence and the so-called “rhythm” method. The bishops at Lambeth agreed that the pope was in error on this subject. Of course, that meant the bishops themselves had been in error in 1920; but Anglican bishops can change their minds, and popes find it difficult to do that.

The bishops had always been reluctant to exercise leadership, but now they were willing to share it. The 1968 conference made radical changes in the Anglican Consultative Council, ordering it to include equal numbers of bishops, priests, and lay people from the five largest provinces and a priest or lay person as well as a bishop from the others. The Council could also select six other individuals to serve with them, of whom two must be women and two less than 28 years old. Now, for the first time, there would be an official body created to help build relationships between the member churches of the Communion. A Communion that had been held together simply by “mutual affection,” a Prayer Book tradition, and occasional meetings of bishops would now have a representative body meeting every two years. Communion would be expressed through a committee.

Editor's Note: Part 4 of Webber's essay continues here. In it, Webber considers the Lambeth Conferences from 1978 to the present. He focuses on the ordination of women as a central and divisive issue, the 1978 call for a study of homosexuality, the recognition of a state of "impaired communion" (dating from 1988), and the changing role of the primates.

Unity and Diversity in the Lambeth Conference

2008-01-29T19:59:00.000-06:00

Editor's Note: This is the 2nd part of Christopher Webber's essay, continued from here, about the history and future of the Lambeth Conference. Information about the author and resources appear in Part 1. Subsequent parts of his essay will be published over the next few days.

Part II: Broader Agendas
by Christopher L. Webber

Resolutions adopted on church and social issues
Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral adopted
Definitions of “full communion” and “essentials of faith” not adopted
Sexual issues raised: divorce and contraception condemned
Women to be admitted to all lay ministries

This mid-18th century painting by Samuel Scott shows Lambeth Palace from across the River Thames. The image appears here, courtesy of the Society of Genealogists.

1888

By the time a third Lambeth Conference was called for, the idea of such meetings had become a tradition. Therefore, the agenda in 1888 was much bolder than that of the first two conferences, ranging from socialism to polygamy and including "Authoritative standards of Doctrine and Worship” as well as "Mutual relations of Dioceses and Branches of the Anglican Communion.” Now, for the first time, resolutions were brought before the bishops and officially adopted. The bishops acted not only upon resolutions having to do with the life of the church, but also with the civil societies in which they functioned.

“Intemperance” had become an issue in the growing cities of England and America, and the bishops suggested that governments could help by restricting the number of places where alcohol could be drunk and the hours when such places were open. In the Anglican spirit of balance, they also condemned the fanaticism of many prohibitionists as sometimes “uncharitable and presumptuous.” Now that resolutions were being adopted officially, disagreement became visible. Resolutions on not admitting polygamists to baptism found from 20% to 40% of the bishops in opposition.

The life and unity of the church were a primary concern. The principles laid down ten years earlier, that each national church should respect the work of the others and that bishops should not enter the dioceses of others without permission, were said to have been “neglected,” and therefore were reaffirmed. Statements had been made in the past about not “defining any matter of doctrine,” but it was this conference that accepted the principles known now as “The Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral” as a sufficient basis for Christian unity.

The conference also suggested that it would be useful for the Archbishop of Canterbury to appoint a small committee to draw up a simple statement of the teaching of the Anglican Communion on such subjects as the Catholic Faith, the Holy Scriptures, the Sacraments, the Forms of Prayer and Liturgy in use in the Anglican Churches, the relation of the Anglican Churches to the Church of Rome, the Churches of the East, and other Christian Churches and Societies, and the relation of the teaching of the Church of Christ to human knowledge. [Edward White Benson (depicted at left) was Archbishop of Canterbury from 1883-1896.]

The conference agreed that the 39 Articles could well be amended in some particulars. Such a statement surely went well beyond the limits laid down for the first two conferences.

The conference also stated its opinion via reports received and included by reference in an encyclical letter on divorce and polygamy, among other things, in spite of the fact that there was considerable dissent on both matters, ranging from almost a quarter to well over a third of the bishops present. A long report on “purity” was adopted, calling on bishops and churches to work for a reformation of manners in relation to marriage and sexual matters. The bishops were concerned, they said, to “guard the innocent, to punish the guilty, to rescue the fallen, to suppress the haunts of vice, and to remove temptation from our thoroughfares.”

1897

In 1897, at the fourth Lambeth Conference, the bishops set out to define themselves by referring to letters of the earlier conferences which had been addressed to “Archbishops, Bishops Metropolitan, and other Bishops of the Holy Catholic Church, in full communion with the Church of England, one hundred in number, all exercising superintendence over Dioceses, or lawfully commissioned to exercise Episcopal functions . . . .” The issue of freedom and unity was addressed again in the statement that: “it is important that, so far as possible, the Church should be adapted to local circumstances, and the people brought to feel in all ways that no burdens in the way of foreign customs are laid upon them, and nothing is required of them but what is of the essence of the faith, and belongs to the due order of the Catholic Church.” The first of these statements, of course, left undefined what was meant by being “in full communion with the Church of England,” and the second left open “what is of the essence of the faith, and belongs to the due order of the Catholic Church.” Over a century later, these questions remain unanswered.

1908

The first conference of the 20th century, in 1908, found sexual matters claiming a central place on the agenda. The sanctity of marriage was seen to be threatened, and the bishops called on all “right-thinking and clean-living men and women” to defend the institution. Divorce, except for adultery and fornication, was not to be tolerated. The bishops declared that those who were divorced, even if “innocent,” could not marry again in the church. That resolution was carried by a vote of 87-84. They declared, though, that the “innocent party,” if re-married in a civil ceremony, might be re-admitted to communion. Birth control and abortion were condemned as well.

The 1908 Lambeth Conference agreed that the “ministry of the laity requires to be more widely recognised.” However, when they came to deal with the creation of a consultative council (called for by the previous conference), they resolved that such a council should be composed of 18 bishops chosen by the various provinces.

[Sidenote: The idea of a "consultative council" appears as early as the call at the 1868 gathering for a "Spiritual Court of Appeal," but no such "court" was created. In 1878, there was a suggestion of a "Voluntary Board of Arbitration," but again no such board seems to have been put in place. There was a call in 1897 for the Archbishop of Canterbury to create a "consultative council," but still there is no evidence that it was done. It seems there was some continuing interest in having a tool available to resolve disputes, not a body meeting at regular intervals; but no such group was created, and apparently no disputes were referred. All these proposals, of course, were to include only bishops and usually archbishops. The distinguished American Bishop of Olympia, Stephen Bayne, who became the first Anglican Executive Officer, created what he called an Anglican Consultative Council after the 1958 Lambeth Conference to work with him, but there is no indication that such a group was formally constituted as an authorized gathering until 1968.]

1920

The First World War made it necessary to postpone the next Lambeth Conference until 1920, and the war had begun to change settled views on a number of issues. Women, said the 1920 conference, should be admitted to all councils in the church in which lay men served. Here the conference was, indeed, staking out new territory. It took the Episcopal Church in the U.S. another fifty years to get itself in line with Lambeth and admit women as deputies to its General Convention.

On other matters of gender, however, the bishops at Lambeth were much more hesitant. The use of contraception was seen as a “grave danger - physical, moral and religious,” and the distribution of prophylactics was seen as “an invitation to vice.” The bishops believed that the use of such materials “threatens the race.” An echo of this viewpoint might be found in the response of the Church in Nigeria to the request of the 1998 Lambeth Conference that the Communion should listen to homosexuals as the Nigerian Church stated that such practice “threatens . . . the continuation of the race.” The bishops called on Christians everywhere to bring pressure on governments to end “the open or secret sale of contraceptives, and the continued existence of brothels.”

Part 3 of the essay will be published in the next day or two. In it, Webber considers the Lambeth Conferences of 1920 to 1968, characterized by a focus on the purposes and nature of marriage, the drive for a definition of the Anglican Communion, and an expansion of the membership and mission of the Consultative Council.

A Brief History of the Lambeth Conference: Unity and Diversity

2008-01-28T20:52:00.000-06:00

Unity and Diversity in the Lambeth Conference
by Christopher L. Webber

In this multi-part essay, Christopher Webber raises questions about the history and future of the Lambeth Conference: Where did Lambeth begin? What was the original purpose? What has it accomplished? His essay is not intended as a full history of Lambeth, but a summary of the origins and main developments that may be instructive today.

Due to its length, Father Webber's essay will be published in four parts over the next few days.

About the Author: The Rev. Christopher L. Webber is a graduate of Princeton and the General Theological Seminary where he earned two degrees and was awarded an honorary doctorate. He is the author of a number of books including The Vestry Handbook, Welcome to the Episcopal Church, Beyond Beowulf (the first-ever sequel to the first English saga), and the recently re-issued Re-Inventing Marriage, as well as a new supplement to the last title, called Same Sex Marriage and the Bible (available from his website). In a ministry of fifty years and counting, Fr. Webber has served parishes in inner city, suburban, rural, and overseas communities. He is currently serving as a supply priest in the Diocese of Connecticut.

Webber has written for The Episcopal Majority before. See Listening, Causes and Effects, A Certain Madness, The Conscience of a Conservative, and 1984 in the Episcopal Church.

In this essay, he includes several quotations from the Lambeth Conference archives, which use "English" rather than "American" spelling (e.g., "recognise" rather than "recognize"). The quotations appear here as they do in the originals.

About the Sources: Quotations here have been drawn from two websites and a book:

The Lambeth conferences of 1867, 1878, and 1888: with the official reports and resolutions, together with the sermons preached at the conferences
The Lambeth Conference Official Website - Archives
The Lambeth Conference 1958: The Encyclical Letter from the Bishops together with the Resolutions and Reports (New York: Seabury Press, 1958)

In addition, an archive of Lambeth resolutions is available at the Lambeth Conference archive.

Introduction

The Archbishop of Canterbury has sent out invitations to the bishops of the Anglican Communion to meet together at Lambeth this summer. It’s the fourteenth time that has happened, and the second time that there has been a serious question as to who might come. The first time a bare majority arrived: 76 out of 144. Many of those absent in 1868, including the Archbishop of York, had serious questions as to whether it was a good idea. Would they be creating a new center of authority? Would they be setting something in motion that might have unforeseen consequences?

In 2008 over 800 invitations have been sent, but it seems likely that a significant number will choose not to attend. Be that as it may, it seems like a good time to ask how we got here. Where did Lambeth begin? What was the original purpose? What has it accomplished? Are we over-hyping this thing? What follows is one attempt to sum it up. It is not intended as a full history of Lambeth, but a summary of the origins and main developments that may be instructive today.

Part I: The Beginning

No binding decisions to be made
Invitations to “all avowedly in communion”
No defining of doctrine
Respect for each other
No ministry in another jurisdiction without consent

It was the Bishop of Vermont who first suggested a conference of Anglican bishops; but it was an appeal from the Canadian bishops, who saw the political unity between their country and England beginning to dissolve, that brought about the first gathering. The Archbishop of Canterbury was nervous about it. Who knew what might happen if you brought together so many bishops, or what the consequences might be for the powers of individual bishops and archbishops?

"It should be distinctly understood," said Archbishop Longley, "that at this meeting no declaration of faith shall be made, and no decision come to which shall affect generally the interests of the Church, but that we shall meet together for brotherly counsel and encouragement.... I should refuse to convene any assembly which pretended to enact any canons, or affected to make any decisions binding on the Church.” Nonetheless, the Archbishop of York and several others from his province refused to come, and the Dean of Westminster refused to let the Abbey be used for the closing service, citing (among other reasons) "the presence of prelates not belonging to our Church." [Photo at right: Archbishop of Canterbury C.T. Longley taken in 1864 (from the Lambeth Conference website). Photo Credit: Lambeth Palace.]

Hesitantly, however, Archbishop Longley sent out invitations to “all who are avowedly in communion with our Church,” assuring them that “such a meeting would not be competent to make declarations or lay down definitions on points of doctrine. But united worship and common counsels would,” he hoped, "tend to maintain the unity of the faith.” 76 of the 144 bishops invited made their way to England in the autumn of 1868 and heard the Archbishop assure them that, “It has never been contemplated that we should assume the functions of a general synod of all the churches in full communion with the Church of England, and take upon ourselves to enact canons that should be binding upon those here represented. We merely propose to discuss matters of practical interest, and pronounce what we deem expedient in resolutions which may serve as safe guides to future action.”

In spite of all these protestations, when the bishops gathered, the Archbishop of Capetown asked for a change in the program so that he could have advice on dealing with a bishop in his province who was accused of heresy. In spite of “the strenuous protest of several bishops,” the conference appointed a committee to look into the matter and report back. The suggestion that a “Court of Appeal” be created to deal with such matters was also referred to a committee. When the committees reported back three months later, the Lambeth archives states, fewer than twenty bishops were still available to deal with them, so the reports were “received” and referred to a future conference for action.

When the Canadian bishops asked for a second conference, the new Archbishop of Canterbury, Archibald Campbell Tait, was clear that such problems should be avoided. “There is no intention whatever,” he said, “on the part of anybody to gather together the Bishops of the Anglican Church for the sake of defining any matter of doctrine. Our doctrines are contained in our formularies, and our formularies are interpreted by the proper judicial authorities, and there is no intention whatever at any such gathering that questions of doctrine should be submitted for interpretation in any future Lambeth Conference any more than they were at the previous Lambeth Conference.” [Tait photograph (at left) courtesy http://www.nndb.com/people/390/000098096]

It was at that second conference, in 1878, that the Archbishop of York (William IX Thomson) preached a sermon that is still relevant in 2008. He drew on the story in Acts of the way in which Peter and Paul had argued in the early days of the church, and said, “It may be permitted us reverently to question whether the pulse of divine life in the Church has been hastened by one beat, by the violence of the zealous, who have thought well to be angry for the cause of God. Through strife, but not by strife, the Church has passed upon her way.” [The photo of Archbishop Thomson, at right, is from 1878.]

Also still relevant in 2008 were resolutions about unity within the Anglican Communion. It should be, the bishops said, “distinctly recognised and set forth, as of great importance for the maintenance of union among the Churches of our Communion” that “the duly certified action of every national or particular Church . . . should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members” and that “no bishop or other clergyman of any other Church should exercise his functions within [some other] diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof.”

Each member church should be free to govern its own life, but always remembering the other churches. That tension between freedom and unity was recognized early in relation to worship which, it was agreed, was central to the life of the Communion. While the bishops agreed that there should be great freedom for churches to revise the Book of Common Prayer, they also cautioned that too great variation would imperil the Communion’s unity.

The proposal made ten years before, for a “Court of Appeal,” was dealt with by a committee which announced that they were “not prepared to recommend that there should be any one central tribunal,” but rather that each province should deal with its own issues. Where a province was unable to do so, however, they agreed there might be a committee of five Archbishops, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, to review the case and offer an opinion. In keeping with the preliminary guidelines that ruled out doctrinal definitions, the report was not officially adopted, but rather incorporated in an encyclical letter approved by those in attendance.

Having weathered two conferences without committing themselves to much of anything, the bishops did, however, express “the hope that the problem, hitherto unsolved, of combining together for consultation representatives of Churches so differently situated and administered, may find, in the providential course of events, its own solution.” They therefore ventured to suggest that conferences might “be invested in future with somewhat larger liberty as to the initiation and selection of subjects for discussion.”

“Differently situated and administered” though the dioceses were from which the bishops came, it was still assumed that they had something in common besides Anglicanism: the Archbishop of Canterbury greeted them as coming “from all continents, and seas, and shores, where the English tongue is spoken.” Yet even then, such a greeting might have been questioned since the Bishops of Shanghai and Haiti were among those present, to say nothing of bishops from Wales and India. Overlooking that fact, the conference arranged for its encyclical letter to be translated only into Latin and Greek!

Note: Part 2 of Christopher Webber's essay will be published shortly. In it, Webber considers the Lambeth Conferences of 1888 to 1920.

The Episcopal Majority Meets Bishop Iker

2008-01-25T21:24:00.000-06:00

A week ago, the Reverend Thomas B. Woodward was in the Diocese of Fort Worth to present two programs to those wishing to remain in the Episcopal Church or at least to explore the questions. Father Jake carried an announcement, along with some background information and recommended sources for news about developments in the Diocese of Fort Worth. Here, Father Woodward provides a personal reflection about a meeting that occurred before the two public meetings.

Upon receiving an invitation to speak to Via Media people in Fort Worth and in Wichita Falls January 18-20, I wrote to Bishop Jack Iker to request a meeting with him to hear whatever concerns he might have about a dissident coming into his diocese to challenge his consistent message to his flock.

I could not have been happier with his response. He would see me shortly before lunch on the day I arrived in Fort Worth. In preparation for the visit, I bought a six pack of Santa Fe Brewery Pale Ale and a couple of pounds of Hatch roasted green chilies as a love offering from me, though in spirit from the Diocese of the Rio Grande. I also was careful to inform Bishop Iker of the sorts of things I would be talking about, referring him to some of what I have written for The Episcopal Majority, including the booklet The Undermining of the Episcopal Church.

We spent the first part of our meeting exchanging pleasantries, and I expressed my regret that his experience in the Episcopal Church was such that he felt he must leave it. Then I asked if he had any concerns about my speaking to his people. He said that he did not mind debate and arguing about matters of theology and the Bible – but that he did not like the demonizing that often accompanied it. He then mentioned several of the phrases that were most hurtful to him. I assured him that I had not used any of that language about him – but have stepped over the line more than once with my rhetoric, but always grateful when others mentioned that so I could apologize and, hopefully, learn something. He noted that he, too, has stepped over the line from time to time.

I assured Bishop Iker that I intended no disrespect for him during my time in his diocese. We then shared stories of blessing and of hurt in our life in the church. At the end of our time I asked for his blessing. We stood and he put his hands on my shoulder and prayed a most beautiful prayer, asking God’s blessing on my son in his recovery, asking God’s blessing on my time in Fort Worth and on my talks to his people.

I carry several things away with me from that meeting. First, what a joy it is when two people, so opposed on so many critical issues and concerns, can spend time relating to the best in the other with the best of ourselves. That is not the whole truth, but it is part of the truth. Second, I do not discount the hurt and sometimes the humiliation my friends and others in Fort Worth have suffered when +Jack has stepped over the line, nor the havoc his beliefs and attitudes about women’s ordination and our “Anglican agonies” have wreaked. Third, at this point the two of us are in the same church and attempting to follow the same Lord. Fourth, there is certainly pain when we encounter the worst in each other, but the pain is worse when we encounter their best, for it is then that the deep ache sets in as we wait for a time when our several wounds are healed and our fears are stopped in such a way that our best is our consistent selves. We are obviously not there yet.

The talks did go well, both in Fort Worth and in Wichita Falls. They were followed by time with the Steering Committee of Via Media Dallas. While I had requested time with Bishop Stanton for an earlier trip that had to be cancelled, there was no time for such a visit this time. I did, though, revel in my time with several of my heroes and heroines in the church, including Dixie Hutchinson, Katie Sherrod and Gayland Pool.

I will have more to say about the talks themselves. One thing is probably worth mentioning here. I had done some thinking about what the faithful could do to sustain themselves, and the thought about singing “We Shall Overcome” during communion at diocesan gatherings had stuck in my mind. However, reflecting upon all that is at stake in our struggles to remain in the fullness of the Episcopal Church, an even more appropriate song came to mind: “They Can’t Take That Away from Me.”

Tom Woodward
Santa Fe, NM

Postscript: Fort Worth Via Media posted a synopsis by Susan Reeves of Father Woodward's January 19 presentation , and Katie Sherrod provided a reflection after his presentations.

Civil Discourse (Part 4)

2008-01-22T01:31:00.000-06:00

by the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)

Editor's Note: This is the last installment of the essay posted here, an excerpt from Bishop Robinson's In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, scheduled for publication in April 2008 from Church Publishing. We are grateful to CPI for giving us permission to publish this chapter from Bishop Robinson's forthcoming book.

But how do we now move forward? And what is the rightful role of religion in this public discourse? Unlike some issues we’ve faced in the past, the movement forward in the civil realm is tied intimately to moving forward in the religious realm. There is perhaps no other prejudice, ensconced in the laws of the land, that’s so based on sacred scripture, so entwined with our theological understanding of the nature of humankind and the sexuality which proves to be both its blessing and its curse. No other attitude in the body politic is so tied to an attitude stemming from a particular Judaeo-Christian teaching. Change in no other social attitude in the secular culture is so tied to change in religious belief.

So it will take religious people and religious voices to undo the harm done by religious institutions. While there’s been a decline in the number of people who experience and express their spirituality in and through formal religious institutions, religion is still a powerful force within the culture, and it generally works against progress in the inclusion and full civil rights for gay and lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. It’s time that progressive Christians rescue the Bible from the Religious Right, which has held it hostage and claimed it as its own private territory for far too long. It’s time that Christians and Jews actually read the holy scripture they claim as the basis of their beliefs, instead of simply believing what others tell them it says. It’s time we use reputable scholarship, sound reason, and thoughtful exploration to understand what the words of scripture meant to the person who authored them and what they meant to the people for whom they were written, before deciding whether or not those words are binding on people outside that ancient cultural context. It’s time that progressive religious people stop being ashamed of their faith and afraid to be identified with the Religious Right, and start preaching the Good News of the liberating Christ to all God’s children.

But what is a good, positive and appropriate way to voice one’s religious convictions in public discourse? I think it involves a simple shift in focus from the public to the private in these expressions. I’m free to express my own personal and religious reasons for coming to the opinions I express, but the minute I start arguing that you must come to those same opinions because my religious truth must be your truth too, then I violate the divide between private and public. Most alarming of all is when “my” truth becomes “the” truth, applicable to everyone. James Dobson or Pat Robertson are perfectly free to tell me about the religious beliefs that compel them to oppose the acceptance of gay people, but when they claim that their beliefs are right and true for all humankind, they move from democracy to theocracy.

Similarly, if I argue for the full inclusion of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people in society, I must do so on the merits of my argument, not on a claim that my understanding of God is right and true and compels everyone. I must make my arguments based on decency, compassion, democratic principles, and a notion of the common good – not on any reading of any sacred text to which I might subscribe.

We need to separate, as best we can, the civil realm from the religious, especially in the struggle for equal civil marriage rights for all citizens. Clergy have long acted as agents of the State in the solemnization of marriages. Because a priest or rabbi or minister acts on behalf of the State in signing the marriage license and attesting to the proper enactment of the marriage, we’ve lost the distinction between what the State does and what the religious institution does. In fact, the State affects the marriage, while the Church pronounces its blessing on it. In France, everyone is married at the mayor’s office; those who are religious reconvene at the church for the religious blessing. Those who don’t desire such a blessing are still fully married according to the laws of the State. In such an arrangement, it’s clear where the State’s action ends and the Church’s action begins.

We need to make a clear distinction between civil rights and religious rites. It may take many years for religious institutions to add their blessing to same-sex marriages, and no church or synagogue should be forced to do so, but that should not slow down progress toward the full civil right to marriage as executed by the State for the benefit and stability of the society. Because in New Hampshire civil unions is now legal, my partner of twenty years and I have made plans to enter into such a union in June 2008. On the steps of the State capitol, our legal, civil union will be solemnized by our female Jewish lawyer. That’s the civil part, accountable to the State. Then we will walk across the street to St. Paul’s Church for prayers of thanksgiving and blessing for our union—that is the purview of the Church. Such a separation of the roles of Church and State might be helpful in many ways. Perhaps it’s a separation that ought to be made for all couples, heterosexual and homosexual alike.

In the end, I know everything will turn out right. Christians are hopeful by nature – not because we have any special confidence in the desire of human beings to do the right thing, but because of our confidence in God to keep prodding, inspiring, and calling us until we do it. The world may be ready for change, but our faith tells us that change is anything but random. God is always working for the coming of the kind of Kingdom in which all are respected, all are valued, all are included. I believe the Holy Spirit is working within the Church and within the culture to bring that full inclusion about, and in the end, God will not be foiled. In the meantime, we need to work with all our might, intellect, dollars—and all our hearts--to bring that new world into existence.

Note: This text appears in In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, by Gene Robinson, © 2008 Church Publishing Incorporated. Used by permission of the publisher. Bishop Robinson’s book will be available in April 2008. You may click here to place an order from Church Publishing.

Pittsburgh Episcopalians Speak

2008-01-16T20:35:00.000-06:00

We received this press release today from Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh in response to the news that the Title IV Review Committee found that Bishop Robert Duncan has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church and that Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has invited him to provide evidence that he considers himself fully subject to the Episcopal Church. Our coverage of that story is here.

Progressive Episcopalians Of Pittsburgh
6393 Penn Avenue, PMB 207
Pittsburgh, PA 15206-4010

Contact:
Joan R. Gundersen, President
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh
Telephone: +1 (412) 799-0440
E-mail: jrgunder@hotmail.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Progressive Episcopalians See Review Committee Action
As Providing Reconciliation Opportunity

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania — January 16, 2008 — Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh (PEP) sees reason for hope in the statement issued yesterday by The Episcopal Church’s Title IV Review Committee certifying that, in its view, Bishop of Pittsburgh Robert Duncan has abandoned the communion of The Episcopal Church. PEP believes that the canonical procedures set in motion by this decision will clarify issues of polity that have become confused in this diocese.

Under Canon IV.9, the House of Bishops will, at its fall meeting or at a special meeting called earlier, give or withhold its consent for Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to depose Bishop Duncan.

“The action of the Review Committee gives all of us in Pittsburgh serious cause to reflect,” said Dr. Joan Gundersen, President of Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh. “This can be an opportunity for all of us to consider how we can change course and restore relations with one another and with The Episcopal Church.”

The Rev. Diane Shepard, First Vice President of PEP, commented, “We understand that Bishop Duncan must follow his conscience regarding the kind of church he believes is faithful to the Gospel. Whether he can resume his role in The Episcopal Church or must relinquish it, we pray that he finds a way to serve Christ’s Church in peace and good conscience.”

PEP is committed to a diocese that finds its strength in diverse understandings of Christian faith and, as our Baptismal Covenant requires, respects the dignity of every human being, ideas that exemplify The Episcopal Church at its best. “Especially now, in this time of crisis, PEP encourages all Episcopalians in the diocese to engage in dialogue about how we can move forward together. Some people may choose to leave The Episcopal Church. We hope their number will be few,” declared president Gundersen.

Contact:
Joan R. Gundersen, President
Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh
Telephone: +1 (412) 799-0440
E-mail: jrgunder@hotmail.com

On the Web:
This document:
http://progressiveepiscopalians.org/html/2008-01-16opportunity.html

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh:
http://progressiveepiscopalians.org/

The Episcopal Church:
http://episcopalchurch.org/

Diocese of Pittsburgh:
http://www.pgh.anglican.org/

Progressive Episcopalians of Pittsburgh is an organization of clergy and laypeople committed to the unity and diversity of The Episcopal Church, and of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. It is a member of the Via Media USA alliance.

Action on Bishop Duncan

2008-01-16T19:50:00.000-06:00

ENS yesterday released a story that the Title IV Review Committee has agreed that Pittsburgh bishop Robert Duncan has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori informed Duncan on January 15 of the certification and sent him a copy. Her letter told Duncan that she sought the canonically required permission from the House's three senior bishops with jurisdiction to inhibit him, based on the certification, from the performance of any episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts. "On 11 January 2008 they informed me that such consents would not be given at this time by all three bishops," Jefferts Schori wrote.

The three senior bishops whose consent would have been required for inhibition are Leo Frade of Southeast Florida, Peter Lee of Virginia, and Don Wimberly of Texas.

As Episcopal Café observes, this is similar to the charge against Bishop Schofield; but without the senior bishops' consents, Bishop Duncan cannot be inhibited. The House of Bishops will act on the abandonment charge at their next regular or special meeting after the 60 days for recanting has elapsed as per the time limits in Title IV Canon 9.2. If a majority of bishops eligible to vote then agree with the charge, the Presiding Bishop deposes him.

The full report of the Title IV Review Committee is available here. Members of that committee are Upper South Carolina Bishop Dorsey Henderson (committee chair), Bishop Suffragan David C. Jones of Virginia, Bishop C. Wallis Ohl Jr. of Northwest Texas, Bishop Suffragan Bavi E. Rivera of Olympia, Bishop James Waggoner of Spokane, the Rev. Carolyn Kuhr of Montana, the Very Rev. Scott Kirby of Eau Claire, J.P. Causey Jr. of Virginia, and Deborah J. Stokes of Southern Ohio.

In her letter to Bishop Duncan, the Presiding Bishop acknowledged that action on his inhibition cannot be taken until 60 days have elapsed. She wrote in her letter to him: "I would, however, welcome a statement by you within the next two months providing evidence that you once more consider yourself fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church."

In a statement posted on the Diocese of Pittsburgh site, Bishop Duncan offered a brief response to the news, saying, “Few bishops have been more loyal to the doctrine, discipline and worship of The Episcopal Church. I have not abandoned the Communion of this Church. I will continue to serve and minister as the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh."

Father Jake has dug a bit more deeply into the canons and inhibition documents. Go over there and read more. Mark Harris also offers analysis at Preludium. Count on Mark to be careful and generous.

The photo at right is of Bishops Duncan and Iker at the August 2007 consecration in Nairobi of bishops to serve in the United States.

A story posted today at The Living Church reveals that Fort Worth bishop Iker also received a letter from the Presiding Bishop on January 15.

Bishop Jack Leo Iker of Fort Worth informed The Living Church on Jan. 15 that he has received a second letter from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori threatening him with new disciplinary action.

“Unlike her November letter, it did not imply a charge of ‘abandonment of the communion of this church’, but it said that I would be liable for charges of violation of my ordination vows if I continue ‘any encouragement of such a belief’ (i.e. that parishes and dioceses can leave The Episcopal Church),” Bishop Iker said.

It only stands to reason that bishops Duncan and Iker are receiving similar attention by the Title IV Review Committee.

Civil Discourse (Part 3)

2008-01-14T01:14:00.000-06:00

by the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)

Editor's Note: This is a continuation of the essay posted here, an excerpt from Bishop Robinson's In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, scheduled for publication in April 2008 from Church Publishing. We are grateful to CPI for giving us permission to publish this chapter from Bishop Robinson's forthcoming book.

These things may seem hopelessly off-topic for issues related to gay and lesbian people, but they’re all deeply related. We’re talking about how we change our minds – as a culture, a nation, and a Church – about something we’ve been very sure about for thousands of years. To some, it seems like the height of madness and a willy-nilly discarding of ancient truths. To some, it seems as if nothing is certain anymore, or that the Church doesn’t know what it believes. But to others, it seems like the kind of change that Jesus promised would be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Only through such a gentle and comforting understanding of the continuing work of God will people find the courage to change their minds about this issue.

But why is the resistance to change on this issue so vehement, so vitriolic, so deep? Why would two people wanting to pledge their love and fidelity to one another for their mutual benefit and the benefit of society be seen as a problem? Why wouldn’t conservatives applaud the pledge of faithful monogamy in gay marriage for the people they’ve always accused of being promiscuous and irresponsible? Why wouldn’t conservative Christians want to see gay people stop entering usually-disastrous heterosexual marriages just to be happy and accepted? Why can conservatives use gay marriage as an effective wedge issue in political campaigns?

Or, in the Church, why would my election as bishop of a fairly conservative, rural and small-town diocese in New England turn into a worldwide controversy? How could my election spawn thousands of hateful letters and emails? Why would I, a Christian elected by the clergy and people of a diocese to be their bishop, receive death threats from other religious people and have to wear a bulletproof vest for my consecration? Why would people around the world, from the bush of Kenya to the remotest of Pacific islands, debate my fitness for this calling, based not on my skills, experience, and faithfulness, but on my sexual orientation? Why would some leaders in the Anglican Communion consider it dangerous to meet with me, talk with me, or even be seen with me?

First, we’ve never been very comfortable talking about sex. The Puritans in American culture didn’t help, nor did the Victorian Age in Britain, with its often duplicitous sensibilities. The realities of our sexual lives are perhaps too frightening to bring to the light of day.

Yet many of the moral issues that face us today involve sexuality. Abortion, fertility therapies, alternative methods of reproduction, the role of men and women, and the ending of half of all marriages in divorce that signals a crisis for the contemporary family—all these involve sexuality. We need to talk about these things, yet we have little experience doing so. Parents still falter over what to tell their children about sex—and when. Perhaps our near-obsession with homosexuality is a group denial mechanism for heterosexuals not to talk about their own sexual issues. If we can talk about them, then we don’t have to talk about us. If we can focus on their problems, we don’t have to talk about our own.

Most people resist seeing the treatment of homosexuals as “their” problem. Gay and lesbian people have known for a long time that the problem isn’t gay and lesbian people’s sexuality, but their ill treatment by a hostile society.

The problem, though, isn’t exactly “homophobia.” That surely exists, but it’s always a conversation stopper. Some claim they’re not afraid of homosexuals so they’re “not guilty” of homophobia. But the further sin our society is guilty of is “heterosexism.”

Everyone knows what an “ism” is: a set of prejudices and values and judgments backed up with the power to enforce those prejudices in society. Racism isn’t just fear and loathing of non-white people; it’s the systemic network of laws, customs, and beliefs that perpetuate prejudicial treatment of people of color. I benefit every day from being white in this culture. I don’t have to hate anyone, or call anyone a hateful name, or do any harm to a person of color to benefit from a racist society. I just have to sit back and reap the rewards of a system set up to benefit me. I can even be tolerant, open-minded, and multi-culturally sensitive. But as long as I’m not working to dismantle the system, I am racist.

Similarly, sexism isn’t just the denigration and devaluation of women; it’s the myriad ways the system is set up to benefit men over women. It takes no hateful behavior on my part to reap the rewards given to men at the expense of women. But to choose not to work for the full equality of women in this culture is to be sexist.

So the sin we’re fighting now, within the secular sphere, is the sin of heterosexism. More and more people are feeling kindly toward gay and lesbian people, but that will never be enough. More important is the dismantling of the system that rewards heterosexuals at the expense of homosexuals. That’s why equal marriage rights are so important. That’s why “don’t ask, don’t tell” is such a failure and such a painful thing for gay and lesbian people, even those who have no desire to serve in the military. These are ever-present reminders that our identities, our lives, and our relationships are second class – because the very system of laws that govern us discriminates against us and denigrates our lives. Over one thousand rights are automatically granted to a couple who marries. Yet the gay couple who has been faithfully together for thirty years is denied those very same rights.

At their root, heterosexism and homophobia are expressions of misogyny, the hatred of women. If you doubt the currency of this misogynistic attitude, go to the video store and rent a movie with a football storyline. At some point, in so many of these films, when the team is about to lose the big game and the players need to be pumped up, the coach will belittle, anger, and presumably empower the team by calling them a bunch of girls. Why does that work? Because no insult could be worse!

But heterosexism, like sexism, is beginning to erode in society and in the church. For a very long time, most of the decisions affecting the world have been made by white, heterosexual, educated, Western men. Ever so gradually, though, people of color were invited to the conversation; then women; and now gay and lesbian people. And things are never the same when the oppressed claim—and receive— their voice. It’s no wonder the resistance is so fierce, given that we’re changing a system that’s been in place almost forever.

Sneak Preview of Part 4:

But how do we now move forward? And what is the rightful role of religion in this public discourse? Unlike some issues we’ve faced in the past, the movement forward in the civil realm is tied intimately to moving forward in the religious realm. There is perhaps no other prejudice, ensconced in the laws of the land, that’s so based on sacred scripture, so entwined with our theological understanding of the nature of humankind and the sexuality which proves to be both its blessing and its curse. No other attitude in the body politic is so tied to an attitude stemming from a particular Judaeo-Christian teaching. Change in no other social attitude in the secular culture is so tied to change in religious belief.

Note: This text appears in In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, by Gene Robinson, © 2008 Church Publishing Incorporated. Used by permission of the publisher. Bishop Robinson’s book will be available in April 2008. You may click here to place an order from Church Publishing.

The final section of Bishop Robinson's "Civil Discourse" appears here.

The Strange Saga of San Joaquin

2008-01-14T01:07:00.000-06:00

Your editor has been a bit overwhelmed this weekend with Real Life while life in the blogosphere has continued. I will not attempt here to recap all the news related to the strange situation of former Episcopal bishop Schofield. We posted the inhibition story here. Now it appears that Schofield cannot seem to figure out whether he parks his mitre in California or South America. Rather than trying to recap events, I refer you to these sites and postings that will let you catch up.

Father Jake covered the inhibition here. As he reported, the morning after the inhibition, San Joaquin issued a response, declaring that Schofield is a member of both the Episcopal Church and the Province of the Southern Cone. Shortly thereafter, Presiding Bishop Venables (of the Southern Cone) and Fort Worth bishop Iker responded in a rather contrary way, declaring that TEC has no power over Schofield, since he's no longer a bishop in the Episcopal Church. Soon thereafter, Schofield's canon issued a "correction." Father Jake covers it all, including a detailed fisking of San Joaquin's initial response, along with reports of the San Joaquin "correction" and the observation that all the conservatives deleted their initial postings. Father Jake puts it in context here. Since all the original sources of San Joaquin's initial response have deleted it, Father Jake has posted it here for review.

Thinking Anglicans seems to have been the first to reveal that the initial San Joaquin statement, quickly deleted from conservative blogsites, was written by this public relations firm, which specializes in "crisis management."

As usual, Mark Harris provided a thoughtful analysis of San Joaquin's response.

Also as usual, Episcopal Café does a fine job of coverage. At "Is He or Isn't He," they provide a good summary and ask pointed questions. At the conclusion of that story, they provide a timeline of the permutating responses from San Joaquin.

After the inhibition, EpiScope provided a round-up of news reports, as did Thinking Anglicans provided Thinking Anglicans.

Breaking News from San Joaquin

2008-01-11T19:20:00.000-06:00

We have recently posted news from the Diocese of San Joaquin, whose convention voted to leave the Episcopal Church and join the South American Province of the Southern Cone. This evening, Episcopal News Service has posted two significant stories.

Presiding Bishop inhibits San Joaquin bishop
Action comes after Review Committee says Schofield has abandoned the Episcopal Church
By Mary Frances Schjonberg

[Episcopal News Service] Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori on January 11 inhibited Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield.

In the text of the inhibition, Jefferts Schori wrote: "I hereby inhibit the said Bishop Schofield and order that from and after 5:00 p.m. PST, Friday, January 11, 2008, he cease from exercising the gifts of ordination in the ordained ministry of this Church; and pursuant to Canon IV.15, I order him from and after that time to cease all 'episcopal, ministerial, and canonical acts, except as relate to the administration of the temporal affairs of the Diocese of San Joaquin,' until this Inhibition is terminated pursuant to Canon IV.9(2) or superseded by decision of the House of Bishops."

Jefferts Schori acted after the Title IV Review Committee certified that Schofield had abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.

The full story is at Episcopal Life Online. As previous reports (including this one) have explained, an inhibition is followed by a two-month period during which the bishop will be allowed to recant. What happens if an inhibited bishop fails to recant? An earlier ENS story provides the answer:

If [an inhibited bishop] failed to do so, the matter would go to the full House of Bishops. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the House of Bishops.
If the House concurred, the Presiding Bishop could depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Members of congregations in the diocese remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.
An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.
A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

Meanwhile, the remaining Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin are going about their work, according to this story at Episcopal Life.

San Joaquin's remaining Episcopalians to gather for reconciliation, inclusion, celebration
By Pat McCaughan

[Episcopal News Service] A January 26 gathering of continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin and national church leaders, "Moving Forward, Welcoming All," will focus on reconciliation, inclusion, and celebration, event organizers said.

"We are just so encouraged; we're looking forward to welcoming more people," said Cindy Smith, president of Remain Episcopal, a group which opposed the December vote to realign the Central California Valley diocese with the Argentina-based Province of the Southern Cone, which has about 22,000 members and encompasses the South American nations of Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay.

Former Bishop John-David Schofield had urged the realignment, approved by 42 of the diocese's 47 congregations. Clergy approved the split 70-12 and laity voted 103-10 for realignment.

But in recent weeks, momentum and enthusiasm have spiked as additional people and some congregations "have thought about what has happened, what it means to not be part of the Episcopal Church anymore" and sought out continuing communities of faith, said Smith.

Episcopal Life Online has the full story.

Father Jake has been carrying the most comprehensive coverage of news from the Diocese of San Joaquin. At his site, go to the sidebar on the right and scroll down to the subsection, "The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin." Click on any of the links to access those discussions.

What can Episcopalians do in the light of all this?

With all that is occurring within San Joaquin, this much is clear: It's going to take a great deal to support the Episcopal Church in this region. The organization taking the lead in working with the leadership of the Episcopal Church is Remain Episcopal.

First and foremost, pray for the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Episcopalians there will need comfort, strength, discernment, and wisdom.

Second, send a tangible note of support via their website, as The Episcopal Majority – like many other individuals and organizations – have done.

Finally, the tasks facing the diocese will require considerable financial support. You can make contributions (via their 501(c)(3) organization) to Remain Episcopal at:

Remain Episcopal
2067 W. Alluvial
Fresno, CA 93711

Saturday morning update:

Thinking Anglicans is carrying news reports about this development.

According to Kendall Harmon (of TitusOneNine), the "Diocese of San Joaquin" has issued the statement:

The Episcopal Church’s assertion that Bishop Schofield has abandoned the communion of this Church is an admission that TEC rejects the historical Anglican faith which is why The Diocese of San Joaquin appealed to the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone of South America for emergency and temporary protection. The majority of the other provinces of the Anglican Communion hold to the traditional faith. It is the primary duty of bishops to guard the faith and Bp Schofield has been continually discriminated against for having done so while Bishops and Archbishops around the world have affirmed not only his stance but the move to the Southern Cone. Bishop Schofield is currently a member of both the House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church and the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone, a position not prohibited by either house. Governing documents of TEC do not prohibit relationships between different members of the Anglican Communion, rather they encourage it. TEC’s action demonstrates that there is an enormous difference between their church and most of the Anglican Communion Again, this action is a demonstrationthat TEC is walking apart from the faith and its expression of morality held by the rest of the Anglican Communion..

The Episcopal Church’s own identity is dependent upon its relationship with the whole Anglican Communion. TEC should consider whether it is imperiling that relationship by taking such punitive actions.

How is it that over 60 million Anglicans world wide can be wrong while a few hundred thousand in the American Church can claim to be right?

The source of that statement is not specified (i.e., whether it was issued by a communications officer or Schofied, voted upon by a diocesan group, etc.). We expect clarification will be offered.

Civil Discourse (Part 2)

2008-01-10T20:31:00.000-06:00

by the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)

Editor's Note: This is a continuation of the essay posted here, an excerpt from Bishop Robinson's In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, scheduled for publication in April 2008 from Church Publishing. We are grateful to CPI for giving us permission to publish this chapter from Bishop Robinson's forthcoming book.

There’s not a single nation, culture, or religion that isn’t dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Even those religions that are absolutely clear and unswerving in their condemnation of homosexuality are being challenged by their gay and lesbian members to take another look at that condemnation. Some estimate, for example, that between 40 and 60 percent of Roman Catholic priests are gay. [Stuart, Elizabeth, Chosen : Gay Catholic Priests Tell Their Stories] The Southern Baptist Convention, to which local autonomy is almost sacred, has expelled congregations for offering blessings to same-sex couples or for calling a gay minister. Conservative Jews have admitted gay and lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered rabbinical students to their seminaries. Evangelical Christians have been rocked by revelations that some of their leaders have had secret affairs with people of the same sex.

Who’d have thought we’d ever see legal civil unions and even marriage for gay and lesbian couples? Who’d have thought that a country like South Africa would write gay and lesbian civil rights explicitly into its constitution, or that a Roman Catholic country like Spain would permit marriage between same-sex couples? Many Anglicans from around the world continue to call on me to resign my position as bishop, naively believing that if I went away, this issue would go away, and the Church would return to its quiet, peaceful existence – though the Church has never, in its 2000-year history, enjoyed a time free of conflict.

Why does religion play such an important role in this debate? Religion, of course, has always played a role in the public discourse of nations. But why the particularly virulent and passionate stances on this issue? And why can’t we simply ignore the religious argument and have a thoroughly secular debate?

Religion makes its beliefs known on a variety of issues – from abortion to stem cell research, from environmental stewardship to capital punishment. But most faith communities have people on both sides of these issues within their ranks – at least in part because you can’t find too many definite proclamations in scripture either for or against them. You can read Genesis 1:28, for instance (“Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth”), and argue for good environmental stewardship. Or, using the same verse but different understandings of key words, you can argue for total exploitation of the environment. You can defend abortion on the basis of our God-given personal conscience or oppose it on the basis of the sanctity of life.

But the Bible doesn’t seem to mince any words about homosexuality. Leviticus, for instance, seems specifically to condemn male homosexuality: “You [men] shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (18:22) and “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death.” (20:13) (There are no same-sex proscriptions for women in these texts, by the way.) The fact that the Bible seems specifically to name homosexuality as repugnant to God and deserving of capital punishment makes religion particularly relevant to our understanding of this issue, in ways that are more compelling than with other hot-button issues.

The fact is, at least in Western culture, God’s condemnation of homosexuality is assumed. It’s in the air we breathe. And because of that, religious belief is relevant in our discourse about civil rights for gay and lesbian people.

So, what does the Bible really say about homosexuality? I believe our traditional understanding of the biblical—hence God’s—attitude toward homosexuals is flawed and needs to be reinterpreted.

First, the philosophical and psychological construct of sexual orientation is a modern phenomenon. It was only at the very end of the nineteenth century that the notion was first posed that there might be a certain minority of people who are naturally oriented – affectionally and sexually – toward members of the same gender. In biblical times, and until the last hundred or so years, it’s been assumed that everyone is heterosexual, which meant that anyone acting in a homosexual manner was acting “against their nature.” In other words, homosexuals were “heterosexuals behaving badly.” Indeed, many recent evangelical translations of the Bible use the word “homosexual” to translate certain Greek and Hebrew words that may not be related to homosexuality per se, but to sexual exploitation and abuse of underage boys by older men, common in Roman and Greek culture, and to temple prostitution in neighboring heathen cultures. Yet reading one of these translations using the word “homosexual,” you’d assume that the ancient Hebrew and Christian communities were talking about precisely the same thing we’re talking about today. That’s not the case. You can’t take a twentieth-century word, insert it back into an ancient text, and proclaim that it means something totally unknown to the authors of that text.

Second, our understanding of the word “abomination” is different from its original use. According to the Holiness Code in the Book of Leviticus, many things were an “abomination” to God, including the eating of pork. Eating pork wasn’t innately wrong, but abstaining from it was one of the ways Jews were reminded that they were a separate, chosen people. Observing the dietary laws reminded them of this special relationship to God. Jews were also forbidden to eat shellfish, plant two kinds of seed in the same field, or wear two kinds of cloth simultaneously. Tattoos were prohibited; those who cursed their parents were to be put to death. Yet you don’t hear leaders from the Religious Right denouncing these “abominations.”

Third, the ancient Hebrews’ understanding of the science of reproduction and sexual activity was different than ours today. Male sperm was thought to contain all of nascent life—the only contribution made by women in the reproductive process was providing a place for the fetus to incubate. So any “spilling” of male seed was considered tantamount to murder. Ancient Hebrews were a small minority, living in a hostile, heathen environment, struggling to reproduce, build up their population, and survive, so any waste of male sperm was antithetical to that survival and synonymous with not only murder, but a betrayal of the national interest. In the same way, masturbation and even coitus interruptus in heterosexual copulation (the so-called “sin of Onan”) were prohibited because they wasted male seed and squandered the possibility of new human life. Today, we understand that both sexes contribute to the process of human reproduction, and our day’s problem is over- rather than under-population. We believe sexuality has purposes far beyond reproduction. Yet these few verses of scripture are quoted as if nothing has changed in our understanding since biblical times. Note, of course, that all the other references to the “spilling of seed” have been reinterpreted to be acceptable, but not the proscription against same-sex behavior.

Recent studies have yielded rich information about the culture in which these texts were written and heard. Much of the biblical scholarship of the past fifty years has focused on the societies and cultures that formed the settings for these scriptural texts, both those of the ancient Hebrews and the early Christians, as well as the competing and often hostile cultures surrounding them. We’ve come to know the deeper meaning of these sacred texts as we’ve become more knowledgeable about the cultural situations to which they were responses. Those who argue for a literalist reading of scripture often act as if none of this scholarship has occurred or makes any difference to a twenty-first century understanding.

And though I believe the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments are the Word of God, that doesn’t mean they are literally the “words” of God, virtually dictated by God through human media. And let’s not forget that the real “Word” of God is Jesus himself. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God,” begins the Gospel of John. Christians believe it isn’t the Bible but the Jesus “event” – his life, death and resurrection – that offers the perfect revelation of God. The Bible is the best and most trustworthy witness to that event, but it neither replaces Jesus as the Word nor takes precedence over Christ’s continuing action in the world through the Holy Spirit. To elevate the words of scripture to a place higher than the revealed Word of God in Jesus Christ is an act of idolatry.

Sneak Preview to Part 3:

These things may seem hopelessly off-topic for issues related to gay and lesbian people, but they’re all deeply related. We’re talking about how we change our minds – as a culture, a nation, and a Church – about something we’ve been very sure about for thousands of years. To some, it seems like the height of madness and a willy-nilly discarding of ancient truths. To some, it seems as if nothing is certain anymore, or that the Church doesn’t know what it believes. But to others, it seems like the kind of change that Jesus promised would be inspired by the Holy Spirit. Only through such a gentle and comforting understanding of the continuing work of God will people find the courage to change their minds about this issue.

Note: This text appears in In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, by Gene Robinson, © 2008 Church Publishing Incorporated. Used by permission of the publisher. Bishop Robinson’s book will be available in April 2008. You may click here to place an order from Church Publishing.

Addendum (01/14/08): Click here to proceed to Part 3 of Bishop Robinson's essay.

Civil Discourse (Part 1)

2008-01-08T17:48:00.000-06:00

by the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson (New Hampshire)

Editor's Note: As we noted a few days ago, Bishop Gene Robinson gave an impressive lecture at NOVA University. We later learned that his lecture was part of In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, a book scheduled for publication in April 2008 from Church Publishing. You can place advance orders here. We are grateful to CPI for giving us permission to publish this chapter from Bishop Robinson's forthcoming book; we will publish it in sections over the coming days, as a gift to our readers and the wider church.

In this chapter from his forthcoming book, Bishop Robinson talks about the Scriptures, how the Holy Spirit has guided Christians in the past two millennia, the civil rights of gay and lesbian Christians, and the need for mainstream Christians to "take back the Bible" from the extremists.

Civil Discourse

Sometimes—who knows why—the world just seems to be ready for a movement or a cause. In our day, it’s full civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people. But swirling around this movement is a galaxy of questions. Why are we here in this particular moment, struggling with this particular issue? Why does religion play a central role in this debate—and is that role appropriate in public discourse? Who are the loudest, strongest voices coming from the religious community, and why are they so strident, unrelenting, and passionate? What does the Bible really say about homosexuality, what does it not say, and why does it matter in a secular state? What is the rightful role of religion in public discourse? How does this debate about the civil rights of LGBT people relate to the other “isms” of our culture, and what is the broader context for discussion of human rights for all citizens? How do we move forward in the never-ending search for the common good?

What the answers are depends on who you are. Look at me. Let’s just note for the record that I am male. I will never know what it’s like to live my life as a female, and if a lesbian were writing this, her perspective would be entirely different. I am a white man. The experience of being gay in a community of color is different than mine, too, especially since gay people of color experience a double discrimination that I can only imagine. I grew up in a family that was poor, uneducated, and deeply religious, in a rural, largely segregated region of Kentucky, where we were tobacco tenant farmers, living without running water and central heat, but unaware of how poor we were. All of that colors who I was, who I came to be, and how I understand my own story. Not in my wildest dreams did I ever imagine a world in which we’d be talking openly about homosexuality, much less having an international debate in which I’d sometimes, reluctantly, find myself at the center.

I am a Christian. The fact that I am tempted to add “but not that kind of Christian” speaks to the powerful role the conservative Religious Right has come to play in this debate. While I believe Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah, I don’t believe he is the sole revelation of God’s self to the world. I respect and revere all those who have come to know God through other faith journeys. I can only speak out of my own context as a Christian, and I trust others to make the connections and translations into the understandings of their own faith communities. After all, the challenge before us as citizens of democracies is to define our rights and responsibilities to one another no matter what our beliefs are.

Why are we here in this particular moment in the history of this country and in the struggle for human rights? In the 1970s, most North Americans, like most Britons or Australians, would have told you – honestly – that they didn’t know any gay or lesbian people. If pushed, they might admit that there was weird Uncle Harry, a lifelong bachelor who everyone knew was a bit different, or those two spinster ladies who’d lived together down the street for as long as anyone could remember. But did they know any out, proud, and self-affirming gay and lesbian people? Probably not.

Fast-forward to today. Is there anyone left who doesn’t know a family member, co-worker, or neighbor who is gay? The reason, of course, is that the intervening decades have seen the unprecedented efforts of gay and lesbian people to make themselves known – as gay and lesbian – to their families, co-workers, and friends. Progress, of course, has proceeded at differing rates based on geography and culture. Metropolitan areas, to which many gay and lesbian people have gravitated because of both anonymity and generally more liberal attitudes, were the vanguard of these public admissions of sexual orientation, and these more secular, less religious, settings have provided more open and accepting environments for coming out. But the real shift in the culture has been the quiet, mostly private admissions by sons and daughters, cousins and aunts and uncles, in families from Birmingham to Boise, from Liverpool to Chipping Norton, from Winnipeg to Sydney: “Yes, I too am gay.”

It was the countless dramas, played out one at a time, of gay and lesbian people, courageously sharing who they really were at the core of their being with those they loved or worked with, that has literally changed the world and brought us to this moment.

That’s the way change always happens. You have a world view that seems to work pretty well at interpreting reality—then bam! Something happens that doesn’t fit into that view – something that your old world view can’t even explain. You’re thrown into chaos and confusion, and nothing seems certain anymore. And then, little by little, your old world view is reshaped to accommodate this new truth.

That’s the way it happens for families of gay and lesbian people. Parents believe the traditional view that homosexuals are immoral, sick, disordered, and misguided – until a beloved child comes and says, “Mom, Dad, I’m gay.” The parents are plunged, on the one hand, into the chaos of knowing their beloved children are not immoral, sick, disordered, or misguided, and on the other hand, knowing that what’s been said about gay people by the Church and the world. Over time, they come to understand that their children are exactly the same people they’ve always been, only happier and healthier. The old world view about homosexuality is overhauled into a new understanding that allows parents to continue loving their children. They may not be out there beating the drum for marriage equality (although many of them are), and they may not be bragging to all their friends about their son’s new boyfriend (though some of them may), but something deep and important has changed, some significant piece of ground has shifted, and the world isn’t the same as it was. That is happening all over the world at any given moment.

Sneak Preview of Part 2
There’s not a single nation, culture, or religion that isn’t dealing with the issue of homosexuality. Even those religions that are absolutely clear and unswerving in their condemnation of homosexuality are being challenged by their gay and lesbian members to take another look at that condemnation. Some estimate, for example, that between 40 and 60 percent of Roman Catholic priests are gay. [Stuart, Elizabeth, Chosen: Gay Catholic Priests Tell Their Stories] The Southern Baptist Convention, to which local autonomy is almost sacred, has expelled congregations for offering blessings to same-sex couples or for calling a gay minister. Conservative Jews have admitted gay and lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered rabbinical students to their seminaries. Evangelical Christians have been rocked by revelations that some of their leaders have had secret affairs with people of the same sex.

Note: This text appears in In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, by Gene Robinson, © 2008 Church Publishing Incorporated. Used by permission of the publisher. Bishop Robinson’s book will be available in April 2008. Order now from Church Publishing.

Part Two of Bishop Robinson's "Civil Discourse" will be published in the next day or two.

Addendum (01/10/08): Continue to Part 2 of Bishop Robinson's essay here.

Easter Gift

2007-12-31T18:27:00.000-06:00

Fr. Bill Easter is one of the finest and most generous priests in the Episcopal Church. Here he tells the story of his search for the perfect gift for our departing bishop, Jeffrey Steenson, who had announced earlier that he was leaving the Episcopal Church to become a Roman Catholic with the intention of teaching Patristics in that church. It would be difficult to imagine any two people who would enjoy this event more than Bill Easter and Jeffrey Steenson.

– Thomas B. Woodward

What Do You Give Your Bishop When He Leaves For Rome?
by the Rev. Bill Easter

I had selected what I thought was a very proper parting gift for Jeffrey that I planned to give him at an informal farewell party of some 30 clergy.

Alas, I managed to miss the party, so I called Jeffrey the Friday after the party and made arrangements for a visit at his office in the Diocesan Center. I found him dressed in mufti, packing books in boxes.

We sat and after some preliminary courtesies, I presented the gift along these lines: "Jeffrey, I was tasked with finding you a proper gift as befits your departure and your new undertaking. Knowing me as you do, you can appreciate what a challenge it was for me. I had no idea of proper, but had confidence that I would know it when I saw it. Lo, it came suddenly and without fanfare, fetched by two angels.

"It will, I trust, serve you well in the days ahead and create in you nostalgia for your many years in the Episcopal Church. As for serving you in the days ahead, this gift will permit you to bring peace and quiet to the eternal city of Rome. As you know, the drivers in Rome use their horns instead of brakes, with the result of a nightmarish cacophony that incessantly assaults the ear. Properly displayed, this gift will still the Roman racket, for which you will be richly blessed and your fame spread and celebrated."

I then handed him the handsomely wrapped gift. Jeffrey unwrapped it and found a bumper sticker that read:

Honk if your bishop is a woman

Jeffrey smiled, thanked me, and said, "I've heard of this." We embraced and parted.

The two angels were of the female persuasion and will remain anonymous to protect the guilty.

About the Author: The Rev. Bill Easter resides in the Diocese of the Rio Grande (where he has been licensed for fifteen years), but is canonically resident in the Diocese of Chicago. He has previously written for The Episcopal Majority and is an esteemed member of The Episcopal Church Institute.

Recent Events in San Joaquin

2007-12-29T20:35:00.000-06:00

A few of us are avid readers of the Episcopal blogs and websites, but many of our readers are not. For those in the latter group, we offer this background.

For a good summary, visit Father Jake's site. Over in the right-hand sidebar, he has a roundup of news and commentaries on events in the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin; go to the sidebar on the right, scroll down past "Recent Comments" to the section entitled "Previous Posts," and there is a subsection: "The Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin." Or … continue reading below for our attempt to summarize events of the past three weeks.

The people meeting in the diocesan convention of the Diocese of San Joaquin voted this month to leave the Episcopal Church and affiliate, instead, with the Province of the Southern Cone (which encompasses some far-flung parishes in southern and eastern South America). In the lead-up to this convention, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori warned then-Episcopal Bishop John-David Schofield that an affirmative vote would constitute an actionable breach from the Episcopal Church.

Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori has consistently made it clear what will happen to dioceses that pretend to leave the Episcopal Church. In letters she has written to Bishops Schofield, Duncan, and Iker, she has explained the process clearly: For bishops like Schofield (and Duncan and Iker, who seem to be following shortly behind) who pretend to remove their dioceses from the Episcopal Church:

the Presiding Bishop could ask the Title IV Review Committee to consider whether the bishops who have proposed and supported them have abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.

Current members of the Title IV Review Committee are Bishop Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina (president), Bishop Suffragan Bavi E. Rivera of Olympia, Bishop Suffragan David C. Jones of Virginia, Bishop C. Wallis Ohl Jr. of Northwest Texas, the Rev. Carolyn Kuhr of Montana, the Very Rev. Scott Kirby of Eau Claire, J.P. Causey Jr. of Virginia and Deborah J. Stokes of Southern Ohio.

The letter continues:

If the Presiding Bishop presented materials to the Review Committee regarding potential abandonment by those bishops, and if the Committee agreed that abandonment had taken place, the bishops would have two months to recant. If they failed to do so, the matter would go to the full House of Bishops. There is no appeal and no right of formal trial outside of a hearing before the House of Bishops.
If the House concurred, the Presiding Bishop could depose the bishops and declare the episcopates of those dioceses vacant. Members of congregations in the diocese remaining in the Episcopal Church would be gathered to organize a new diocesan convention and elect a replacement Standing Committee, if necessary.
An assisting bishop would be appointed to provide episcopal ministry until a new diocesan bishop search process could be initiated and a new bishop elected and consecrated.
A lawsuit would be filed against the departed leadership and a representative sample of departing congregations if they attempted to retain Episcopal Church property.

The San Joaquin convention nonetheless voted on December 8 to secede from the Episcopal Church and become members of the Province of the Southern Cone. The Episcopal Church responded here.

Many of us continue to scratch our heads, wondering how a region that is so obviously within the borders of the U.S. could suddenly pretend that is now within South America. TEM's Tom Woodward highlighted the incongruity of this move in his "Plastic Man" essay.

Shortly after that convention, ENS reported that former bishop Schofield was threatening to close any missions that didn't support him – or whose vicars didn't support him – at the diocesan convention. In a December 11 story, ENS reported that mission congregations were being threatened by Schofield. That story is here, and Father Jake added commentary here.

Meanwhile, on December 14, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori wrote to Schofield, asking him to clarify his status, and to declare whether he was or wasn't still a member of the Episcopal Church. Schofield's rather strange response was posted here. Having spoken boldly about the apostasy of the Episcopal Church, Schofield suddenly began mincing words in his official response. Mark Harris analyzed the response.

It didn't take long for former Episcopal bishop Schofield to begin taking action. The vicar of St. Nicholas Episcopal Church (Atwater, CA) had failed to "vote with" the bishop at convention. On December 20, the former Episcopal bishop had threatened the mission church of St. Nicholas with closure, and the vicar wrote to Southern Cone Bishop Schofield, asking him to clarify his intentions. Episcopal Life and Father Jake carried the story. At The Episcopal Majority, we declared Father Risard our hero of the month.

Southern Cone Bishop Schofield did visit St. Nicholas on Advent IV, December 23. Father Risard allowed him to preach and to celebrate the Eucharist on December 23, in an act that strikes us as generous, given that Schofield had taken himself outside the Episcopal Church. No summary can capture the events that occurred during that service. Read the first-hand reports at Father Jake's site here and here. Southern Cone bishop Schofield addressed the congregation after the Eucharist and just before the recessional. He said he had not come to fire Father Risard nor to close the mission, then he announced Father Risard would no longer be paid to serve the mission. Father Risard responded, providing his perspective on events. The most detailed and dispassionate report is available here.

Events escalated on Christmas morning, when Southern Cone Bishop Schofield's Canon to the Ordinary sent an e-mail to St. Nicholas' deacon and senior warden, announcing that Father Risard was fired, that locks were to be changed, that financial control was to be ceded to the diocese of San Joaquin (Southern Cone), and that all records were to be turned over to the diocese. Again, Father Jake provides the best one-stop summary of those events. Several wags have commented on the irony that the priest of St. Nicholas was fired on Christmas day. [Photo at right is courtesy Debbie Noda, The Modesto Bee.]

The deacon of St. Nicholas complied with Schofield's request. Other members of the mission plan to meet offsite tomorrow. It remains to be seen what will happen next. [Edited 12/31, as the senior warden was not involved with the lock-changing et al.]

So far, there has been no official comment or news announcement from the Episcopal Church. It is likely that the church leadership is consulting and working carefully behind the scenes to ensure that our constitution and canons are followed. According to an ENS story on December 11, Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori already has appointed Canon Robert Moore "to provide an ongoing pastoral presence to the continuing Episcopalians in the Diocese of San Joaquin." By all accounts, he was present with the people of St. Nicholas last Sunday.

Father Jake has provided this compendium of sites that have reported or reflected on the San Joaquin developments. As he observes, so far, most sites on the "right side of the aisle" have been strangely silent on this story.

Since the secession vote was taken in San Joaquin, Father Jake has been the "one-stop" source for news and information about developments there. We encourage you to visit there for up-to-date information.

What can Episcopalians do in the light of all this?

With all that is occurring within San Joaquin, this much is clear: It's going to take a great deal to support the Episcopal Church in this region. One organization is taking the lead in working with the leadership of the Episcopal Church, and that is Remain Episcopal.

First and foremost, pray for the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin. Episcopalians there will need comfort, strength, discernment, and wisdom.

Second, send a tangible note of support via their website, as The Episcopal Majority – like many other individuals and organizations – have done.

Finally, the tasks facing the diocese will require considerable financial support. You can make contributions (via their 501(c)(3) organization) to Remain Episcopal at:

Remain Episcopal
2067 W. Alluvial
Fresno, CA 93711

Plastic Man

2007-12-27T21:49:00.000-06:00

Plastic Man and his Evil Brother Struggle for the Church
by the Rev. Thomas B. Woodward

About the Author: Thomas B. Woodward, a Board member of The Episcopal Majority, is an Episcopal priest who has served the church over 23 years as university chaplain at a number of campuses and as rector of St. Paul's, Salinas, California, John Steinbeck's parish church. He has written two books for Seabury Press, Turning Things Upside Down and To Celebrate. He and his wife, Ann, now live in Santa Fe, New Mexico.

Lateral thinkers are those whose minds often roam from one idea or image to another and then to still another – most often with connections between the ideas or images known only to themselves. We often end up confused by all the non-plussed reactions of others, but on the other hand, sometimes we see connections that others miss.

For example, this morning while preparing to pay some bills I discovered that the only stamps we have left are the recently issued “Superheroes Series” and there, in a prominent position, was my favorite Superhero from my youth: Plastic Man. My Superhero could twist himself into any configuration that would serve the cause of justice or the public order – and best of all, he could stretch out one of his arms to incredible lengths in order to accomplish his will. More than once, I thought of the absolute disaster that would follow if Plastic Man were to defect to The Other Side.

Given all that, it was easy to make the connection between my superhero Plastic Man stamps with the recent actions of my old seminary classmate, John-David Schofield. John-David announced recently that he is now not a bishop of the Episcopal Church, but of the Province of the Southern Cone (which consists of Anglicans in Argentina, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay – and having once flown from the United States to Argentina, I can assure you that is a long, long way away, even for Plastic Man).

Here is the connection: What was the first episcopal action to be taken by the Southern Cone’s newest bishop, the former Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin? It was to reach across nearly all of South America, all of Central America, up through Mexicali and Calixico and the San Fernando Valley, up through Bakersfield and Fresno into the small town of Atwater, California, to jerk the much loved vicar of St. Nicholas Episcopal Church there out of his pulpit and toss him into the street. (Go to Father Jake's place to catch up on all the fast-breaking news.) That’s right: Schofield has been bishop in the Province of the Southern Cone for less than a month, and he reached across two continents to dump a priest of another Province who had hosted him as an honored visiting bishop from a foreign jurisdiction less than a week ago.

What are we to make of this? Has my old seminary classmate become a twenty-first century reincarnation of my childhood Superhero? If so, isn’t this a stretch way, way beyond the abilities of the Plastic Man honored on my stamps? And is there anyone in or out of the D.C. Comics crowd who would dare to imagine that Fr. Fred Risard, the Vicar of St. Nicholas (Atwater, California) is really the immoral equivalent of a Martin Manhunter or a Queen Bee, those dastardly representatives of the Forces of Darkness and Evil who used to do monthly battle with the real Plastic Man?

Knowing John-David’s near worship of the church’s tradition and what he and others mistakenly refer to as “the faith once delivered by the saints,” I can only conclude that what we are dealing with here is not a reincarnation of Plastic Man, but of his evil twin brother, known only to a few as Blast-ic Man. But how can we tell the difference between Plastic Man and Blastic Man? Let me try:

Plastic Man serves the cause of peace and justice;
Blastic Man talks of “battle” and “warfare” while serving the cause of male privilege.

Plastic Man extends his arms to ward off those who would punish;
Blastic Man extends his arms to swat those who disagree with him in order to punish.

Plastic Man extends his arms to embrace those who have been pushed to the margins;
Blatsic Man extends his arms as a shield to repel those he does not understand or respect.

Plastic Man takes responsibility for his actions – and responds in the light of day.
Blastic Man blames everyone but himself – and responds by hiding behind others.

Now as I try to find some appropriate way of ending this piece, my mind goes to another movie, which is about a comic book anti-hero who lived his early life as a gentle, caring fellow but then turned into a force of malevolence and retribution, punishing all who had dared to challenge his own, small world.

I know the image is unfair. I know my seminary classmate has a reputation as one of the best retreat leaders in the country and as a fabulous pastor to those who have not challenged or disagreed with him. Even so, his taking revenge against Fr. Risard has all the marks of the work of that other comic strip character, The Toxic Avenger. Even non- linear thinkers can jump to this conclusion. After all, his recent actions have been both toxic and avenging. What more do we need? Even so, many will continue to harbor their doubts about my classmate’s true identity: after all, that reaching across continents to jerk a pastor away from his people sure sounds like Blastic Man.

You and I live in a church that affirms that we are the Body of Christ – and that those who attack and invade the Church which is the Body of Christ must be identified as such and resisted with all the force we can muster. That is so whether their names are Schofield or Akinola, Kolini or Lyons. We do not need to wait for Batman and Robin, Plastic Man or Wonder Woman to front for us or to save us. Our willingness to stand together in defense of what God has given us in the Episcopal Church will be more than adequate. We have, after all, been marked with the sign of the Cross, evidence that we have been called and chosen by God to be the real Superheroes. Our armor is as St. Paul describes it, the breastplate of righteousness and all the rest. Our powers are not the usual ones, but faithfulness to a Kingdom based on the Beatitudes, the Comparison of the Sheep and the Goats, and the inclusive, all-embracing love of the Good Shepherd.

The power of a Blastic Man or a Toxic Avenger is, in the end, nothing but wind, sound and fury to be sure – but in the end, only wind.

Forthcoming Series

2007-12-27T12:52:00.000-06:00

Several of us has the good fortune to catch Bishop Gene Robinson's lecture at NOVA Southeastern University, delivered on November 27th and broadcast on C-Span on December 8th. Our webmaster and Board member Lisa Fox provided a link to the webcast on her personal blog. Several people have contacted Lisa and The Episcopal Majority, wishing they could read a written transcript of the bishop's remarks.

We are pleased to announce that Bishop Robinson has graciously given us permission to publish his lecture. Delivered at NOVA Southeastern University Law School last month, it will appear in Bishop Robinson's new book, In the Eye of the Storm: Swept to the Center by God, to be published in April in the U.S., by Church Publishing/Morehouse, and in the U.K. by SCM/Canterbury Press.

We will publish his lecture in sections over the coming days, as a gift to our readers and the wider church.

On the Night Before Christmas

2007-12-24T15:25:00.000-06:00

This is The Episcopal Majority's second Christmas message to our readers. This year the Rev. David K. Fly (President, TEM) offers his reflections.

On the Night Before Christmas

Many years ago, on the night before Christmas, when I was a little boy, after my sister and I were sent to bed and the last light was put out, I would feel a tugging at the blankets that covered me and would find my younger sister standing by my bed. "Do you want to listen again tonight?" she would ask. And then she would crawl into my bed, and the two of us would sit very still in the dark and listen for Santa. "Do you think he will come?" she always asked. I, the older brother, would respond, "Of course he will come. Be quiet now and listen." There we would lie, snuggled up together in bed, listening for sounds of his coming. Occasionally one of us would say, "Did you hear that?" and we would each strain to catch the sound the other heard. At those times, I could hear the beating of my heart.

I remember one year in particular that my sister swore she heard sleigh bells. I didn't hear them but was so excited by what she told me that, by the next morning, I was confidently telling my mom and dad that I, too, had heard them clearly. But even on those nights when we didn't hear a thing, we believed that something wonderful was happening just beyond the reach of our hearing and even though it eluded us again for another year, we would soon wake to find he'd been there.

I don't think I've changed a lot since then. I have, of course, had my own children and often found them snuggled together, asleep in one another's arms after trying very hard to stay up all night to listen for the sounds of Santa. I still find myself being aware of those late night silences on Christmas Eve and I find that I am listening more intently than on most nights of the year. Perhaps tonight I will hear him too.

I suspect this image has come back to me this year because of all the noise that has been generated in the Anglican Communion in the past couple of years. We’ve all been talking so loudly we haven’t taken much time to listen. So, perhaps, tonight, we can simply be still and become aware of our own hopes and fears, doubts and uncertainties, needs and longings. What are the sounds we so desperately need to hear?

The cry of a baby to assure us of life's inherent goodness
The soft rustle of angels' wings to let us know we are not alone
The lullaby of a mother to her child to soothe our hurt and ease our pain
Or the ecstatic shouts of shepherds to share our joy that we have found the son of God

I cannot think of a more appropriate image for a night like this than that of children holding each other in the dark, listening for the one who is coming and knowing that even though he may elude them once again, they will awake to the wonderful signs that he has been and gone and their lives are filled with joy as a result. I would hope that the anticipation of children, of listening to our hearts beat with excitement would lead each of us tonight to the fulfillment of our dreams, our hopes, our longings.

O little town of Bethlehem
How still we see thee lie!
Above thy deep and dreamless sleep
The silent stars go by. . .
How silently, how silently, the wondrous gift is given . . .
O come to us, abide with us,
Our Lord, Emmanuel!

Amen.

Unexpected Praise for TEC

2007-12-20T22:18:00.000-06:00

As Episcopalians, we do what we believe God is calling us to do, often with little expectation that we will be thanked for making life better for someone else. That is not the point. The point is that we do God's will, whether or not we are thanked or even recognized for what we do. As someone said of the story of Jesus' healing of ten lepers, the miracle was not that one returned to say thanks, but that ten were healed.

What follows is really extraordinary. It comes from a source not connected to the Christian Church other than suffering the wounds inflicted by Christians over the years. We hope it warms your heart, as it did ours.

– Thomas B. Woodward
for The Episcopal Majority

There's a fine essay today in The Advocate.

The essay begins:

It used to be that the gays merely caused popular disgust. Then in the Bush-Cheney era -- made possible by the Republicans' ability to capitalize on our potential to incite the aforementioned popular disgust -- Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and their conservative Christian minions blamed us in quick succession for 9/11, the Southeast Asian tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, and the U.S. military's mounting death toll in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Accustomed as we are to being fingered by religious leaders for all manner of secular cataclysm, it seems an extraordinary turnabout that now, even as we figure prominently in an ecclesiastical crisis, Episcopal leaders, far from ringing us up for the damages, either downplay our role in the fight or stand up for our honor.

Here are some other highlights:

I firmly believe that within a generation the antigay hate speech Bishop Schofield so freely espouses will receive as little tolerance as we do today, and I look forward to a time when men like him will wish they had quietly harbored hatred rather than staking their reputations on it. Meanwhile, Bishop Jefferts Schori and other proponents of inclusion will be credited with having furthered the integrity of their faith institutions as dynamic, relevant forces in the 21st century.

Non-Episcopalian gays and lesbians might not think we have a dog in this fight, but we all have a vested interest in the outcome. We find ourselves in a very rare position here, one so unfamiliar to LGBT people we can scarcely grasp its significance: In the determination of the U.S. Episcopal Church to take a stand for our equality and inclusion, we have everything to gain and nothing to lose, while the folks fighting for us risk their political and financial footing in the Anglican Communion, the third-largest Christian body in the world, which is far more sympathetic toward your Bishops Schofield than to the progressive platform embraced by Bishop Jefferts Schori and the majority of her church's 2.5 million members.

We never asked Episcopalians to take up our fight. Rather, it seems, their spiritual path has led them to believe that we aren't any less deserving of ministry or recognition or even consecration simply because we happen to be unpopular sexual minorities. I wish that weren't an extraordinary concept in 2007, but it is. And Bishop Jefferts Schori has hardly blinked in a year of denominational strife that has seen her character and her commitment to her religious office questioned, challenged, dismissed, and maligned.

In this age of gay bashing from all sides, it isn't often we encounter a religious leader—or any leader—willing to bulldog for our rights, especially when faced with such a potentially high cost to herself and the institution she represents. What I wouldn't give for such genuine representation in our elected officials.

When I consider the trail of broken promises left by those we helped to elect, Bishop Jefferts Schori's position becomes that much more remarkable. Reacting to the secession vote in San Joaquin, she not only refused to retreat from her position, she reiterated it: "We deeply regret their unwillingness or inability to live within the historical Anglican understanding of comprehensiveness. We wish them to know of our prayers for them and their journey. The Episcopal Church will continue in the diocese of San Joaquin, albeit with new leadership.

I keep meaning to bake that woman a cake.

In my fruitless search for a presidential candidate who not only believes in my essential equality but is willing to say it out loud and stand by his or her position when the inevitable attacks come down, I wonder if any money I may have set aside to donate to that elusive candidate's campaign might not be better spent tithing to the Episcopal Church. At least there I know my support will go toward furthering my rights, not sending them to the back of the bus—or throwing them under it.

Father Jake also posted this story. He concluded the post simply, with "Some days, I really love my Church!" We simply say "Amen!"

Read it all here.

Hero of the Month

2007-12-20T22:00:00.000-06:00

We are aware that many who log onto The Episcopal Majority are Episcopalians looking for some kind of light or inspiration in remaining Episcopalians in a hostile environment. It is for you, especially, that we post this inspiring story (via Episcopal Life Online) of courage in the face of abusive power:

SAN JOAQUIN: Atwater vicar asks bishop to clarify planned visit
By Mary Frances Schjonberg, December 20, 2007

The vicar of St. Nicholas Episcopal Church in Atwater, California, in the Diocese of San Joaquin has written to Bishop John-David Schofield questioning his plan to visit the congregation December 23 and asking for clarification about his status as a bishop in the Episcopal Church.

The Rev. Fred Risard noted in his December 20 letter to Schofield that St. Nicholas had "already had the pleasure of your annual visitation for 2007."

"Without notice of the upcoming visit we have not had the opportunity to prepare candidates for confirmation, nor is the Bishop's Committee prepared to meet with you," Risard continued.

The vicar told Schofield that he has the permission of the mission's Bishop's Committee (which is the mission equivalent of a vestry) to request the clarifications. Risard also noted that he has consulted with legal counsel.

"We would like you to state to us your pastoral and canonical relationship with St. Nicholas Episcopal Church, and myself," Risard wrote in his letter. "You publicly stated at our diocesan convention that you no longer are the Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, and instead you are a Bishop within the Province of the Southern Cone. As such, we understand your visit is simply to worship with us; there will be no liturgical role for you, neither celebrating nor preaching. The Episcopal Church welcomes all, and you are most welcome to worship, with the purpose of seeking transformation and reconciliation."

Delegates attending the 48th Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin on December 8 voted overwhelmingly to leave the Episcopal Church and to align with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

Congregations and individual Episcopalians who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church are making plans for the continuation of the Diocese of San Joaquin. Continuing Episcopalians and their supporters are exchanging information and resources via the Remain Episcopal website.

On December 14, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori sent a short letter to Schofield asking him to confirm his declaration that he is now under the authority of the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone "means you understand yourself to have departed the Episcopal Church and are no longer functioning as a member of the clergy in this Church." Schofield has not yet responded to the Presiding Bishop's request.

In a December 16 pastoral letter meant to be read or distributed in all the congregations of the diocese, Schofield said, in part, that the diocese is "no longer operating under the looming shadow" of what he called the Episcopal Church's "institutional apostasy."

"In all fairness, if the Presiding Bishop has asked for a clarification and hasn't received one, I think that the priests in the Diocese of San Joaquin are entitled to know, too," Mike Glass, a San Rafael, California-based attorney who represents congregations and individuals who wish to remain in the Episcopal Church within the diocese, told Episcopal News Service. Glass added that priests may be rightly concerned about violating church canons by allowing Schofield to preside in their congregations.

"Until that clarification comes from either the Episcopal Church's canonical processes or from the bishop himself, perhaps the bishop ought to refrain from attempting to exercise any episcopal authority," he added.

Neither Schofield nor any other spokesperson could be reached for comment.

Risard told ENS that Schofield spoke to a deacon at St. Nicholas by phone on December 20 and questioned the intent of Risard's letter. The vicar said that he emailed Schofield later in the day to assure him that he has no intention of banning him from worshipping with the mission congregation.

"I would never ban anybody from worship -- not even my worst enemy -- because I would hope that they would be transformed by the Eucharist and the grace of God," he said.

Risard said he is worried that Schofield is coming to St. Nicholas to either announce the closing of the mission or his removal as vicar, actions that Schofield has taken elsewhere in the diocese during his episcopate.

"Is it his intention to support the mission congregations in their call to worship and to serve the poor or does he want to close it?" Risard said. "He needs to go on record about what he's doing."

Noting that following their Eucharist, the mission congregation plans to "go out into the community to deliver groceries and coats to a dozen needy families as we seek to do the work of Mission which comes out of our worship of our Lord Jesus Christ, our Savior," Risard asked in his letter, "Will you be coming as our Episcopal Bishop, having repented of your actions at Diocesan Convention, seeking forgiveness and reconciliation? Or will you be coming to worship as a visiting foreign Bishop seeking to reconcile with your former congregation and Vicar, and, following the Mass, to join us as we take groceries and coats to the poor?"

The mission has sent announcements to the local newspapers "to reassure the public that the Episcopal Church is still present in the Merced area, where ALL are welcome to worship and do the work of the Mission," Risard said in his letter.

While he thinks it is proper for the Episcopal Church to be pursuing canonical procedures to clarify and then respond to Schofield's status and the actions of the convention, Risard told ENS that other issues must be addressed.

"We need a parallel and no less important conversation about filling the pews in San Joaquin," he said. "We all need to focus on the missions of the church -- not for my own self-interest -- but for the mission of the church" to bring people to Christ.

Among the people to whom Risard sent copies of the letter are Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, House of Deputies President Bonnie Anderson, and the Rev. Canon Robert Moore (whom Jefferts Schori appointed to provide an ongoing pastoral presence to the continuing Episcopalians in the diocese).

We join the The Rev. Fred Risard in his puzzlement. The former Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin has made it clear that he is no longer a part of the Episcopal Church. Now that he is a bishop in a Latin American diocese, we are perplexed that he would want to exercise episcopal jurisdiction in an Episcopal church.

Kudos to Father Risard for asking the pertinent question.

Addendum (12.28.07): Thanks to "Anonymous," who posted in the comments below. For up to date information about Fr. Fred and St. Nicholas click on this link. Also, the best source for news about the situation in the past week is being reported at Father Jake Stops the World.

Rowan's Prose

2007-12-18T17:46:00.000-06:00

Rowan Williams Could Use a Dose of Elmer Davis
by the Rev. George C. Bedell

Back during WW II, my father Chester Bedell, a plain-spoken, straight-forward lawyer, used to love to listen to Elmer Davis, because Davis, more than any of the other newscasters of the day, was plain-spoken. According to Ed Murrow, Davis was admired by the public, because his distinctive Indiana accent made so many Americans feel as though they were listening to their next door neighbor. I'd add that Americans could also readily grasp what Davis was saying. He came on CBS stations at 8:55 p.m., EST, and in five minutes was able to cover just about everything anybody wanted to know in plain and simple English.

One problem with Rowan Williams, the current Archbishop of Canterbury, is his overly complex way of expressing himself. The most recent example of his prolixity is his "Advent letter." I haven't read such a dense, complex, and elusive piece of prose in a long time. I'm sure he wanted the letter to be persuasive to the people throughout the Anglican Communion, including those of us in the Episcopal Church. But only the most devoted would have taken the trouble to read it in its entirety.

I can imagine my late father exclaiming, had he seen the letter, "Oh, my goodness [his most emphatic phrase]! What is this man trying to say?!?" Being the good churchman he was, though, he would have waded through the essay, chirping all along the way about the Williams style. While he might have agreed with some of what Dr. Williams said, he would tell anyone within listening distance that the man has a problem expressing himself. I can imagine his sighing, "The man ought to have listened to Elmer Davis." [See Note 1.]

Fortunately, though, Bill Coats and Matthew Dutton-Gillett took the time and had the patience to elucidate and simplify for the rest of us what Dr. Williams said. I am particularly impressed with Matthew's conclusion that the only way out of the Church's current dilemma is to learn to live with paradox:

Paradox is the stock and trade of the kingdom of God. Perhaps when Jesus invites us to take up our crosses, he is inviting us to take up the burden of paradox: an instrument of death that is for us a symbol of life. Obedience to that call is called in the Scriptures "perfect freedom" – yet another paradox.

I find that suggestion remarkably helpful. I hope that everyone will take the time to "read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest" what Matthew has to say in his fine essay.

While I'm always engaged by Bill Coats's take on things, I'm not at all convinced about the viability of attempting to construct a Covenant. One of the marks of our way of doing things historically has been that we did not adopt a Confession, as did some of our ecclesiastical neighbors. We chose instead the venerable and workable via media. I give Dr. Williams credit for trying, though. He's appointed a Covenant Design Group that's already at work.

But who in the world believes that the Group can accomplish what Williams hopes it will? Even if the Group is composed of all the "right" people, it seems to me they are on a mission to accomplish the impossible, given the current attitude of those who are the most grievously affronted by the Episcopal Church's way of doing things.

That's why I find Matthew's way of the paradox so attractive: not to find some way to do Biblical criticism that everyone can agree on or to create a Covenant that everyone can agree to, both of which seem futile. But as Matthew suggests: each of us in our own way doing our best to become faithful followers of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Which reminds me: Could anyone truthfully say that Our Lord would have refused Gene Robinson a seat at His table?

Or, maybe I shouldn't even have asked that question.

In any case, best regards to all, and let's keep the conversation going ….

[Note 1. I might have added that it's too bad that Dr. Williams never encountered Abbo Martin, long-time English professor at Sewanee. He would certainly have cured Williams of his prolix style.]

About the Author: George Bedell, a priest in the Diocese of Florida, taught Religion at Florida State University, served as Vice Chancellor of the State University System of Florida, and was Director of the University Press of Florida before retiring in 1996. George is also a member of the Board of Directors of The Episcopal Majority.

Listening

2007-12-17T21:50:00.000-06:00

by Christopher L. Webber

Editor's Note: Chris Webber sent us this essay on November 27 – well before some of the more dramatic, recent events occurred in the Anglican Communion. Be mindful that his essay was written before the Bishop of San Joaquin left the Episcopal Church, before the dioceses of Fort Worth and Pittsburg made their first steps to leave the Episcopal Church, before the Archbishop of Canterbury issued his Advent message, and so on. For one reason and another, we are just now publishing his essay.

Christopher Webber's essay was written in response to the Anglican Communion's report of "the Listening Process."

With the distribution of the Archbishop of Canterbury's "Advent message," Chris Webber's essay seems even more relevant … and perhaps more elegiac.

They say that there’s no sound if a tree falls in the forest and there’s no one there to hear it. Likewise if the tree falls in a thunderstorm, perhaps there’s no noise because the air waves are already full.

In 1998 the bishops of the Anglican Communion said we “commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons.” In recent weeks the committee planning for the next gathering of Anglican bishops (scheduled for 2008) has been gathering reports in how the listening process has been going. Amid the chaos and confusion, what can be heard? As one interested listener, what I hear first of all is the incredible diversity of the voices and the improbability that Anglicans will arrive at a common mind anytime soon.

Connecticut Episcopalians are often baffled by the attitudes of Episcopalians in Fort Worth, but at least we are all Americans and follow teams in the NBA. When we add England and Australia to the mix, we no longer have sports in common, but do still speak English - albeit sometimes with accents stranger than a Texas twang. But what do we have in common with Anglicans in Myanmar and the Congo?

Consider, for example, that Myanmar has been involved in a struggle with a brutal dictatorship and that the Congo has been enduring devastating civil conflict. The Anglican Church of the Congo says, quite honestly, “circumstances prevent any response at this time.” Likewise, the Church in the Sudan reports that “social healing” is its priority.

Then, too, there are societies in which conversations about sexuality seem impossible because such conversations are so contrary to their traditions. The Japanese Anglican Church reports that “the culture does not allow for talking about sexuality and so there is little awareness in the congregations of the presence or otherwise of lesbian or gay people and no need, or way of talking about that. In this context it is hard for listening to happen.” In Hong Kong, we are told, “sexuality is not talked about even in private conversations.” In Melanesia “it is not generally thought seemly to discuss sex publicly.”

On the other hand, there are churches unable to hear because their minds are already made up. The Church in Nigeria has reported that “homosexuality is sin” but “the church will respond pastorally to repentance.” There is legislation in Nigeria, which the church supports, to ban “same sex unions, all homosexual acts and the formation of any gay groups.” That makes listening more than a little difficult! The Church of the Southern Cone (Argentina and Chile) objects even to being asked. They have no time, they tell us, for “manufactured agendas . . . foisted on them.”

Listening ought also to go in both directions. It is well worth listening to the Church in Uganda when they report on the ways in which they have already “challenged culture with wonderful results. It has ended the traditions of revenge and enslavement to evil spirits. It has widened the circle of love beyond the immediate family and thus broken strife and mutual exploitation this caused. Inter-ethnic marriage has produced a united society. It has freed women from the bonds of male oppression and challenged polygamy and divorce at will and valued the biblical institution of marriage. It has satisfied the quest for a living God and transformed society especially in the political sphere. It is this obedience to the Holy Scriptures which has enabled the church to counter HIV/AIDS.” They note that they have been ordaining women for some twenty years but when they set up a commission to deal with the listening process it reported that “Concerning homosexual behaviour and relationships in particular, from a plain reading of Scripture, from a careful reading of Scripture and from a critical reading of Scripture, it has no place in God’s design of creation, the continuation of the human race through procreation, or His plan of redemption.” They have also been dealing with dictatorship and civil conflict, but they make no excuses. When they have done so much, can they be faulted for not doing more?

Consider, then, societies that might seem more like that of the United States. Australia might seem not that different, but they report that they have had “difficulty in creating a listening process because homosexuals fear consequences of public identification.” They add that there has been “more shouting than listening in some areas.” Canada began a process of listening in 1976 but reports that there is “no common mind” and they are “continuing to listen.” The Church in Ireland reports cryptically that: “The bishops believed that it was more important to find a temporary accommodation of a disagreement between parties pending a permanent settlement than to assert abstract decrees.”

The Episcopal Church report notes that its listening process began in the 1960s and that there is still widespread disagreement on the subject. So what can we expect when we learn that the Korean Church began its listening process in 1998, Brazil in 1999, and New Zealand in 2006, while in Wales the formal listening process has not yet begun?

Yet these all are Christian Churches, formed by the same Prayer Book tradition, and amidst the diversity there are reminders that the Holy Spirit is at work and that the churches do want to provide a pastoral ministry to all people and develop a deeper understanding of an issue that often sparks more heat than light. The Church in Burundi says that “the debate challenges our understanding of marriage and family” but that it “remains willing to listen to the concerns and challenges of all the Provinces of the Anglican Communion and its ecumenical partners so that we walk together in a way that honours the name of Christ and witnesses to his reconciling love in a hurting and fragmented world. . . All through the current debate on human sexuality the church has prayerfully encouraged unity, understanding and dialogue within the household of God.” Similarly, the Church in the West Indies acknowledges that although homosexuality is “viewed unfavorably in most areas” and “extremes of gay rights and fundamentalism (are) unhelpful . . . change is happening.” They have asked the Bishop of New York to come and help them plan a listening process.

One can hope that the Lambeth bishops did not expect in 1998 that a consensus would have emerged by now. Nor, it seems, will ten more years be likely to bring us all to the same page. But if we listen carefully, we may come to a better understanding of each other and a greater ability to work together in our global village. We may even hear the Holy Spirit at work to do more than we could humanly have expected in ways beyond our imagining.

To learn more, visit the Anglican Communion's "Listening" page.