St. Paul's Blog

The Stable Door is open. ++Rowan Williams ABC

2007-12-23T20:35:00.000-06:00

The stable door is open. Anyone can come in
Rowan Williams on why God is for life, not just for Christmas

Year after year, church attendance at Christmas continues to defy the trends. Disconcerted clergy find themselves putting on an extra carol service or Christingle. Cathedral deans start worrying about health and safety regulations as the number of people standing at the back is still growing five minutes before the service starts. And in spite of all the high-profile antiGod books published this last year, I suspect it’s not going to make much difference to these swelling numbers in church over Christmas.

So what’s going on? I don’t think it’s that people’s doubts and uncertainties are all magically taken away for a couple of weeks in December. But once in a while people need a chance to face up to the bits of themselves that they cheerfully ignore most of the time – a chance to notice what might be missing in their lives.

And Christmas gives us just this. It gives us a story to listen to. It gives us a sense that what matters most deeply to us matters to God too. And it gives us a moment of stillness in a more and more feverish environment.

It gives us a story. If you go to a carol service, you’ll notice that it isn’t just about the story of Jesus’s birth. It starts right back at the beginning of human history and tells us that everything started well and then everything went wrong, and we got so tangled in habits and attitudes that trapped us and damaged us that we couldn’t get out again.

So the question stares us in the face: “Is this your story?” Did you start well and then find yourself snarled up in things that drain your life and energy? There won’t be many people for whom that doesn’t ring a bell or two.

And then the story goes on to say something quite strange and surprising. God steps in to sort it all out. But He doesn’t step in like Superman, He doesn’t even send a master plan down from heaven. He introduces into the situation something completely new – a new life; a human baby, helpless and needy like all babies.

And it’s by that introducing of something new that change begins to happen. Like dropping a tiny bit of colouring into a glass of clear water, it starts to affect the whole glassful.

The Christmas story doesn’t try to explain how it works. It just says: “Now that this story, Jesus’s story, has started, nothing will be the same again.” So we’re not being asked to sign up to a grand theory – just to imagine that the world might have changed. And most of us can manage that for a moment or two. Christmas lets us hold on to that for just a bit longer.

And it tells us that what matters to us matters to God. Most of us have deep-rooted instincts about all kinds of things – about our families and children, about the need for fairness and forgiveness, about honesty and faithfulness in private and public. A great deal of the world we normally live in seems to ride roughshod over many of these instincts.

We get panicky about what our society seems to be doing to marriage and families, about the forward march of a technology that doesn’t ask the moral questions, about the cynicism and brittleness of a lot of political talk and the celebrity culture.

Christmas reminds us of a God who is completely committed to the weakest, who uses power only so that human life can be fuller, more peaceful and generous, who gives us the help we need to make our relationships stable and faithful – and who requires of us a complete honesty about ourselves, and gently, steadily, chips away our self-deceptions. Christmas tells us that our best instincts about human nature and what’s needed for a healthy world and society aren’t just things we’ve made up. They are rooted in the way the whole universe is shaped by God.

Often people demand “moral leadership” from religious figures. Confession time: like others, I suspect, my heart sometimes sinks when I hear this, and I think, cynically, that it’s just about people wanting religious leaders to tell them that they’re right.

But there’s more to it than that: it’s not that folk simply want bishops or vicars to lay down the law all the time. But they do want sometimes to be assured that their hopes aren’t empty and their fears aren’t stupid, in a world where things change so fast and so disturbingly.

They want to know that there is a “home” for their feelings and ideals, that the universe has a shape and a purpose. And yes, religious leaders will be failing in their job if they can’t meet this need.

But as I’ve hinted, it’s not just a need for words. It’s a need for space where you don’t have to struggle, to fight for your place at the table.

You’re just welcome for who you are. It’s a bit of a paradox.

We usually spend the weeks before Christmas in a feverish nightmare of anxiety and driven busyness, as if we were going to celebrate the festival by making our normal situation even worse! But then there comes a moment when we really have to take time out if we’re going to stay sane. That’s the moment when people start thinking about church.

We still have this half-buried conviction that church is a place where, at least at this time of year, we ought to be able to feel at home. We turn up, tired and overwrought, perhaps, still thinking vaguely about what we haven’t done and need to do before tomorrow. And then the story unfolds. Yes, this is our story, and yes, we can for a moment believe that this birth makes a difference. Yes, God cares about the kind of world we want to see and his faithful love is the basis of what makes a really liveable life. And no, we don’t have to do anything for this time except take it in. There are no entrance qualifications. The door of Jesus’s stable is open and anyone can come in and sit down.

None of this – I can hear the atheist protesting – means it’s true, surely? Not in itself, no. But it suggests that, if God is a “delusion”, as some would like us to believe, then quite a lot more of our human life is a delusion as well, including many of our deepest values and our hopes for forgiveness and peace. All sorts of things will make up your mind about whether it is true or not – and naturally I want people to believe it is and I’m happy to have the arguments. But you will never understand why it might matter for it to be true unless you can take in what the Christmas story is saying to us about who we are and the world we live in.

So, arrive early! There are millions who still want to ask these questions and hear the story. And there are millions for whom it’s not just a piece of our “heritage” – a stately home to visit – but a place to live. God is for life, not just for Christmas.

Every blessing to you all for a very happy Christmas.

Rowan Williams is Archbishop of Canterbury

Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter to the Communion's Primates

2007-12-15T16:40:00.000-06:00

December 14, 2007 [Episcopal News Service]

Greetings in the name of the One 'who is and was and is to come, the Almighty', as we prepare in this Advent season to celebrate once more his first coming and pray for the grace to greet him when he comes in glory.

You will by now, I hope, have received my earlier letter summarising the responses from Primates to the Joint Standing Committee's analysis of the New Orleans statement from the House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church. In that letter, I promised to write with some further reflections and proposals, and this is the purpose of the present communication. Although I am writing in the first instance to my fellow-primates, I hope you will share this letter widely with your bishops and people.

As I said in that earlier letter, the responses received from primates differed in their assessment of the situation. Slightly more than half of the replies received signalled a willingness to accept the Joint Standing Committee's analysis of the New Orleans statement, but the rest regarded both the statement and the Standing Committee's comments as an inadequate response to what had been requested by the primates in Dar-es-Salaam.

So we have no consensus about the New Orleans statement. It is also the case that some of the more negative assessments from primates were clearly influenced by the reported remarks of individual bishops in The Episcopal Church who either declared their unwillingness to abide by the terms of the statement or argued that it did not imply any change in current policies. It should be noted too that some of the positive responses reflected a deep desire to put the question decisively behind us as a Communion; some of these also expressed dissatisfaction with our present channels of discussion and communication.

Where does this leave us as a Communion? Because we have no single central executive authority, the answer to this is not a simple one. However, it is important to try and state what common ground there is before we attempt to move forward; and it is historically an aspect of the role of the Archbishop of Canterbury to 'articulate the mind of the Communion' in moments of tension and controversy, as the Windsor Report puts it (para. 109). I do so out of the profound conviction that the existence of our Communion is truly a gift of God to the wholeness of Christ's Church and that all of us will be seriously wounded and diminished if our Communion fractures any further; but also out of the no less profound conviction that our identity as Anglicans is not something without boundaries. What I am writing here is an attempt to set out where some of those boundaries lie and why they matter for our witness to the world as well as for our own integrity and mutual respect.

The Communion is a voluntary association of provinces and dioceses; and so its unity depends not on a canon law that can be enforced but on the ability of each part of the family to recognise that other local churches have received the same faith from the apostles and are faithfully holding to it in loyalty to the One Lord incarnate who speaks in Scripture and bestows his grace in the sacraments. To put it in slightly different terms, local churches acknowledge the same 'constitutive elements' in one another. This means in turn that each local church receives from others and recognises in others the same good news and the same structure of ministry, and seeks to engage in mutual service for the sake of our common mission.

So a full relationship of communion will mean:

* The common acknowledgment that we stand under the authority of Scripture as 'the rule and ultimate standard of faith', in the words of the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral; as the gift shaped by the Holy Spirit which decisively interprets God to the community of believers and the community of believers to itself and opens our hearts to the living and eternal Word that is Christ. Our obedience to the call of Christ the Word Incarnate is drawn out first and foremost by our listening to the Bible and conforming our lives to what God both offers and requires of us through the words and narratives of the Bible. We recognise each other in one fellowship when we see one another 'standing under' the word of Scripture. Because of this recognition, we are able to consult and reflect together on the interpretation of Scripture and to learn in that process. Understanding the Bible is not a private process or something to be undertaken in isolation by one part of the family. Radical change in the way we read cannot be determined by one group or tradition alone.

* The common acknowledgement of an authentic ministry of Word and Sacrament. We remain in communion because we trust that the Lord who has called us by his Word also calls men and women in other contexts and raises up for them as for us a ministry which can be recognised as performing the same tasks - of teaching and pastoral care and admonition, of assembling God's people for worship, above all at the Holy Communion. The principle that one local church should not intervene in the life of another is simply a way of expressing this trust that the form of ministry is something we share and that God provides what is needed for each local community.

* The common acknowledgement that the first and great priority of each local Christian community is to communicate the Good News. When we are able to recognise biblical faithfulness and authentic ministry in one another, the relation of communion pledges us to support each other's efforts to win people for Christ and to serve the world in his Name. Communion thus means the sharing of resources and skills in order to enable one another to proclaim and serve in this way.

It is in this context that we must think about the present crisis, which is in significant part a crisis about whether we can fully, honestly and gratefully recognise these gifts in each other.

The debates about sexuality, significant as they may be, are symptoms of our confusion about these basic principles of recognition. It is too easy to make the debate a standoff between those who are 'for' and those who are 'against' the welcoming of homosexual people in the Church. The Instruments of Communion have consistently and very strongly repeated that it is part of our Christian and Anglican discipleship to condemn homophobic prejudice and violence, to defend the human rights and civil liberties of homosexual people and to offer them the same pastoral care and loving service that we owe to all in Christ's name. But the deeper question is about what we believe we are free to do, if we seek to be recognisably faithful to Scripture and the moral tradition of the wider Church, with respect to blessing and sanctioning in the name of the Church certain personal decisions about what constitutes an acceptable Christian lifestyle. Insofar as there is currently any consensus in the Communion about this, it is not in favour of change in our discipline or our interpretation of the Bible.

This is why the episcopal ordination of a person in a same-sex union or a claim to the freedom to make liturgical declarations about the character of same-sex unions inevitably raises the question of whether a local church is still fully recognisable within the one family of practice and reflection. Where one part of the family makes a decisive move that plainly implies a new understanding of Scripture that has not been received and agreed by the wider Church, it is not surprising that others find a problem in knowing how far they are still speaking the same language. And because what one local church says is naturally taken as representative of what others might say, we have the painful situation of some communities being associated with views and actions which they deplore or which they simply have not considered.

Where such a situation arises, it becomes important to clarify that the Communion as a whole is not committed to receiving the new interpretation and that there must be ways in which others can appropriately distance themselves from decisions and policies which they have not agreed. This is important in our relations with our own local contexts and equally in our ecumenical (and interfaith) encounters, to avoid confusion and deep misunderstanding.

The desire to establish this distance has led some to conclude that, since the first condition of recognisability (a common reading and understanding of Scripture) is not met, the whole structure of mission and ministry has failed in a local church that commits itself to a new reading of the Bible. Hence the willingness of some to provide supplementary ministerial care through the adoption of parishes in distant provinces or the ordination of ministers for distant provinces.

Successive Lambeth Conferences and Primates' Meetings have, however, cautioned very strongly against such provision. It creates a seriously anomalous position. It does not appeal to a clear or universal principle by which it may be decided that a local church's ministry is completely defective. On the ground, it creates rivalry and confusion. It opens the door to complex and unedifying legal wrangles in civil courts. It creates a situation in which pastoral care and oversight have to be exercised at a great distance. The view that has been expressed by all the Instruments of Communion in recent years is that interventions are not to be sanctioned. It would seem reasonable to say that this principle should only be overridden when the Communion together had in some way concluded, not only that a province was behaving anomalously, but that this was so serious as to compromise the entire ministry and mission the province was undertaking. Without such a condition, the risk is magnified of smaller and smaller groups taking to themselves the authority to decide on the adequacy of a neighbour's ministerial life or spiritual authenticity. The gospels and the epistles of Paul alike warn us against a hasty final judgement on the spiritual state of our neighbours.

While argument continues about exactly how much force is possessed by a Resolution of the Lambeth Conference such as the 1998 Lambeth Conference Resolution on sexuality, it is true, as I have repeatedly said, that the 1998 Resolution is the only point of reference clearly agreed by the overwhelming majority of the Communion. This is the point where our common reading of Scripture stands, along with the common reading of the majority within the Christian churches worldwide and through the centuries.

Thus it is not surprising if some have concluded that the official organs of The Episcopal Church, in confirming the election of Gene Robinson and in giving what many regard as implicit sanction to same-sex blessings of a public nature have put in question the degree to which it can be recognised as belonging to the same family by deciding to act against the strong, reiterated and consistent advice of the Instruments of Communion. The repeated requests for clarification to The Episcopal Church, difficult and frustrating as they have proved for that province, have been an attempt by the Communion at large to deal with the many anxieties expressed in this regard. The matter is further complicated by the fact that several within The Episcopal Church, including a significant number of bishops and some diocesan conventions, have clearly distanced themselves from the prevailing view in their province as expressed in its public policies and declarations. This includes the bishops who have committed themselves to the proposals of the Windsor Report in their Camp Allen conference, as well as others who have looked for more radical solutions. Without elaborating on the practical implications of this or the complicated and diverse politics of the situation, it is obvious that such dioceses and bishops cannot be regarded as deficient in recognisable faithfulness to the common deposit and the common language and practice of the Communion. If their faith and practice are recognised by other churches in the Communion as representing the common mind of the Anglican Church, they are clearly in fellowship with the Communion. The practical challenge then becomes to find ways of working out a fruitful, sustainable and honest relation for them both with their own province and with the wider Communion.

That challenge is not best addressed by a series of ad hoc arrangements with individual provinces elsewhere, as the Dar-es-Salaam communiqué made plain. The New Orleans statement, along with many individual statements by bishops in TEC, expresses the anger felt by many in the US - as also in Canada - about uncontrolled intervention, and it is evident that this is not doing anything to advance or assist local solutions that will have some theological and canonical solidity.

I believe that we as a Communion must recognise two things in respect of the current position in TEC. First: most if not all of the bishops present in New Orleans were seeking in all honesty to find a way of meeting the requests of the primates and to express a sense of responsibility towards the Communion and their concern for and loyalty to it. It is of enormous importance that the Communion overall does not forget its responsibility to and for that large body of prayerful opinion in The Episcopal Church which sincerely desires to work in full harmony with others, particularly those bishops who have clearly expressed their desire to work within the framework both of the Windsor Report and the Lambeth Resolutions, and that it does not give way to the temptation to view The Episcopal Church as a monochrome body. Second: it is practically impossible to imagine any further elucidation or elaboration coming from TEC after the successive statements and resolutions from last year's General Convention onwards. A good deal of time and effort has gone into the responses they have already produced, and it is extremely unlikely that further meetings will produce any more substantial consensus than that which is now before us.

The exact interpretation of the New Orleans statements, as the responses from around the Communion indicate, is disputable. I do not see how the commitment not to confirm any election to the episcopate of a partnered gay or lesbian person can mean anything other than what it says. But the declaration on same-sex blessings is in effect a reiteration of the position taken in previous statements from TEC, and has clearly not satisfied many in the Communion any more than these earlier statements. There is obviously a significant and serious gap between what TEC understands and what others assume as to what constitutes a liturgical provision in the name of the Church at large.

A scheme has been outlined for the pastoral care of those who do not accept the majority view in TEC, but the detail of any consultation or involvement with other provinces as to how this might best work remains to be filled out and what has been proposed does not so far seem to have commanded the full confidence of those most affected. Furthermore, serious concerns remain about the risks of spiralling disputes before the secular courts, although the Dar-es-Salaam communiqué expressed profound disquiet on this matter, addressed to all parties.

A somewhat complicating factor in the New Orleans statement has been the provision that any kind of moratorium is in place until General Convention provides otherwise. Since the matters at issue are those in which the bishops have a decisive voice as a House of Bishops in General Convention, puzzlement has been expressed as to why the House should apparently bind itself to future direction from the Convention. If that is indeed what this means, it is in itself a decision of some significance. It raises a major ecclesiological issue, not about some sort of autocratic episcopal privilege but about the understanding in The Episcopal Church of the distinctive charism of bishops as an order and their responsibility for sustaining doctrinal standards. Once again, there seems to be a gap between what some in The Episcopal Church understand about the ministry of bishops and what is held elsewhere in the Communion, and this needs to be addressed.

The exchange between TEC and the wider Communion has now been continuing for some four years, and it would be unrealistic and ungrateful to expect more from TEC in terms of clarification. Whatever our individual perspectives, I think we need to honour the intentions and the hard work done by the bishops of TEC. For many of them, this has been a very costly and demanding experience, testing both heart and conscience. But now we need to determine a way forward.

The whole of this discussion is naturally affected by what people are thinking about the character and scope of the Lambeth Conference, and I need to say a word about this here. Thus far, invitations have been issued with two considerations in mind.

First: I have not felt able to invite those whose episcopal ordination was carried through against the counsel of the Instruments of Communion, and I have not seen any reason to revisit this (the reference in the New Orleans statement to the Archbishop of Canterbury's 'expressed desire' to invite the Bishop of New Hampshire misunderstands what was said earlier this year, when the question was left open as to whether the Bishop, as a non-participant, could conceivably be present as a guest at some point or at some optional event). And while (as I have said above) I understand and respect the good faith of those who have felt called to provide additional episcopal oversight in the USA, there can be no doubt that these ordinations have not been encouraged or legitimised by the Communion overall.

I acknowledge that this limitation on invitations will pose problems for some in its outworking. But I would strongly urge those whose strong commitments create such problems to ask what they are prepared to offer for the sake of a Conference that will have some general credibility in and for the Communion overall.

Second: I have underlined in my letter of invitation that acceptance of the invitation must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference's agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a Covenant. The Conference needs of course to be a place where diversity of opinion can be expressed, and there is no intention to foreclose the discussion - for example - of what sort of Covenant document is needed. But I believe we need to be able to take for granted a certain level of willingness to follow through the question of how we avoid the present degree of damaging and draining tension arising again. I intend to be in direct contact with those who have expressed unease about this, so as to try and clarify how deep their difficulties go with accepting or adopting the Conference's agenda.

How then should the Lambeth Conference be viewed? It is not a canonical tribunal, but neither is it merely a general consultation. It is a meeting of the chief pastors and teachers of the Communion, seeking an authoritative common voice. It is also a meeting designed to strengthen and deepen the sense of what the episcopal vocation is.

Some reactions to my original invitation have implied that meeting for prayer, mutual spiritual enrichment and development of ministry is somehow a way of avoiding difficult issues. On the contrary: I would insist that only in such a context can we usefully address divisive issues. If, as the opening section of this letter claimed, our difficulties have their root in whether or how far we can recognise the same gospel and ministry in diverse places and policies, we need to engage more not less directly with each other. This is why I have repeatedly said that an invitation to Lambeth does not constitute a certificate of orthodoxy but simply a challenge to pray seriously together and to seek a resolution that will be as widely owned as may be.

And this is also why I have said that the refusal to meet can be a refusal of the cross - and so of the resurrection. We are being asked to see our handling of conflict and potential division as part of our maturing both as pastors and as disciples. I do not think this is either an incidental matter or an evasion of more basic questions.

This means some hard reflective work in preparation for the Conference - including pursuing conversations with each other across the current divisions. There will also be a number of documents circulating which will feed into the Conference's discussions, in particular the work of the Covenant Design Group, the resources available from the dialogues with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, the Report of the Doctrinal commission and the papers coming from IASCER. Also significant will be the papers on the core elements of Anglican ministerial education and formation prepared by the group advising the Primates on Theological Education in the Anglican Communion, and the paper on the theology of inter faith relations prepared by the Network for Inter Faith Concerns (NIFCON), Generous Love.

But direct contact and open exchange of convictions will be crucial. Whatever happens, we are bound to seek for fruitful ways of carrying forward liaison with provinces whose policies cause scandal or difficulty to others. Whatever happens, certain aspects of our 'relational' communion will continue independently of the debates and decisions at the level of canons and hierarchies.

Given the differences in response to The Episcopal Church revealed in the responses of the primates, we simply cannot pretend that there is now a ready-made consensus on the future of relationships between TEC and other provinces. Much work remains to be done. But - once again, I refer back to my introductory thoughts - that work is about some basic questions of fidelity to Scripture and identity in ministry and mission, not only about the one issue of sexuality. It is about what it means for the Anglican Communion to behave with a consistency that allows us to face, both honestly and charitably, the deeply painful question of who we can and cannot recognise as sharing the same calling and task.

Finally, what specific recommendations emerge from these thoughts?

I propose two different but related courses of action during the months ahead. I wish to pursue some professionally facilitated conversations between the leadership of The Episcopal Church and those with whom they are most in dispute, internally and externally, to see if we can generate any better level of mutual understanding. Such meetings will not seek any predetermined outcome but will attempt to ease tensions and clarify options. They may also clarify ideas about the future pattern of liaison between TEC and other parts of the Communion. I have already identified resources and people who will assist in this.

I also intend to convene a small group of primates and others, whose task will be, in close collaboration with the primates, the Joint Standing Committee, the Covenant Design Group and the Lambeth Conference Design Group, to work on the unanswered questions arising from the inconclusive evaluation of the primates to New Orleans and to take certain issues forward to Lambeth. This will feed in to the discussions at Lambeth about Anglican identity and the Covenant process; I suggest that it will also have to consider whether in the present circumstances it is possible for provinces or individual bishops at odds with the expressed mind of the Communion to participate fully in representative Communion agencies, including ecumenical bodies. Its responsibility will be to weigh current developments in the light of the clear recommendations of Windsor and of the subsequent statements from the ACC and the Primates' Meeting; it will thus also be bound to consider the exact status of bishops ordained by one province for ministry in another. At the moment, the question of 'who speaks for the Communion?' is surrounded by much unclarity and urgently needs resolution; the people of the Communion need to be sure that they are not placed in unsustainable and damaging positions by any vagueness as to what the Communion as a whole believes and endorses, and so the issue of who represents the Communion cannot be evaded. The principles set out at the beginning of this letter will, I hope, assist in clarifying what needs to be said about this. Not everyone carrying the name of Anglican can claim to speak authentically for the identity we share as a global fellowship. I continue to hope that the discussion of the Covenant before, during and beyond Lambeth will give us a positive rallying-point.

A great deal of the language that is around in the Communion at present seems to presuppose that any change from our current deadlock is impossible, that division is unavoidable and that any such division represents so radical a difference in fundamental faith that no recognition and future co-operation can be imagined. I cannot accept these assumptions, and I do not believe that as Christians we should see them as beyond challenge, least of all as we think and pray our way through Advent.

The coming of Christ in the flesh and the declaration of the good news of his saving purpose was not a matter of human planning and ingenuity, nor was it frustrated by human resistance and sin. It was a gift whose reception was made possible by the prayerful obedience of Mary and whose effect was to create a new community of God's sons and daughters. As we look forward, what is there for us to do but pray, obey and be ready for God's re-creating work through the eternal and unchanging Saviour, Jesus Christ?

'The Spirit and the bride say, "Come"... Amen. Come Lord Jesus. The grace of the Lord Jesus be with God's people. Amen' (Rev.22.17, 20-21).

Christmas Message, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori

2007-12-11T11:17:00.000-06:00

Christmas 2007

Eyes to see

Finding Immanuel as immigrant, wanderer, child

In what form will you find the Christ child this year? The fact of the Incarnation in a weak and helpless babe says something significant about where we focus our search. I am convinced that it is part of our call to exercise a "preferential option" on behalf of the poor, weak, sick, and marginalized. The long arc of biblical thinking and theologizing has to do with seeing God's care for those who have no other helper. Indeed, Jesus is understood as that helper for all who fail, by the world's terms, to save themselves. More accurately, we understand that Jesus is that helper for all.
One of the great gifts of the way in which those in our cultural surroundings celebrate Christmas is the focus on children and on those who have few human helpers. We delight in the wonder of children as Christmas approaches, and many of us make an extra effort to feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, and care for the needy. The challenge is to let our seasonal "seeing" transform the way we meet our neighbors through the rest of the year, and through all the coming years. How might we begin to see that child in those around us: strangers and aliens (both Immanuel and Immigrants); wanderers (Homeless, like Mary and Joseph, for whom there was no room); widows and orphans (Social Outcasts); babe born in Bethlehem (Palestinian and Israeli alike; or the boy babies whom both Pharaoh and Herod sought to kill); divine feeder of thousands (Soup Kitchen worker); and savior of the world (Peacemaker, Bringer of Justice for All, Reconciler, Just and Gracious Lawgiver...). If God comes among us as a helpless child, then the divine presence is truly all around us. Where will you meet Jesus this Christmas?

Veterans' Day Remembrance

2007-11-12T11:28:00.000-06:00

I am the son a veteran and today is Veteran’s Day. On this day, it is a privilege to honor my father and father-in-law and the thousands of men and women who have served in our country’s military. For twenty-two years, my father, like so many others, went where his country sent him and accomplished the missions given him. He was proud to serve. He served during the conclusion of World War II in the Pacific; he served in Korea; he served in Vietnam; he served in Europe, and he served in this country. He was a patriot, proud of his service in both the United States Marine Corps and the United States Army.

Among the many conversations my father and I shared, two have been of lasting significance in my formation as a person and a citizen:

Soon after his return from Vietnam, I asked my father how he felt about the anti-war protests taking place. My father was not a complex man, yet his answer to my question was thoughtful and challenging. He understood the role of the military to be that of upholding and protecting the people of the United States and the Constitution to which he swore an oath of allegiance. While he did not agree with the sentiments of the war protesters, he understood he served in order to uphold the rights of all citizens to do or say whatever they wanted as an expression of their free speech. He did not feel it fair that so much animosity was directed toward soldiers, but he understood the essential importance of free speech as a core doctrine of the Constitution. It was a paradox he felt most professional soldiers understood.

Not too long before my father died (almost 25 years ago), reflecting upon his life and his military service, he told me he had concerns about how the government had used the military during Vietnam. After many years of post-Vietnam revelations, he had growing suspicions the military had been abused by the political leadership and even some of the high-ranking military leadership. He seemed conflicted between his commitment to serve as ordered while a soldier and a growing realization that the war protesters, at least in part, had been right. As we talked, my father told me how important he now felt it was for civilians to participate in the political debate about foreign policy and the use of the military. A soldier does not have a political voice in matters of policy and war he explained. A soldier does what he or she is ordered to do. My father told me he had considered the possibility of dying in war and felt it would be honorable to die defending the constitutional government and the freedoms of the people of the United States. However, he felt it would be a tragic waste to die for less. Therefore, he explained, in the absence of their own voices in the public debate, soldiers depend upon the voices of civilians to hold the government to the strictest constitutional criteria in making decisions for war. Their lives depend upon those voices of responsible citizenship.

My father taught me of the complexities of freedom and of citizenship. Constitutional democracy requires all of us to play our role, both soldier and citizen. On this Veterans’ Day, I recall my father, my father-in-law (a pilot in North Africa in World War II) and all the men and women who have served in the armed forces of our country. I pray my exercise of citizenship will honor their patriotic devotion to service. In the end, it is we, the citizens of this country, who are accountable for the lives and safety of every person in uniform. They are willing to die for us; are we willing to be good citizens for them?

I offer special remembrance today for those of St. Paul’s parish who died in the service of their country during World Wars I & II:

WWI—Jefferson Brumback, James MacKenzie, Jr., James McIndoe, John Richards, II

WWII—Tedd Cowell, Percy Evans, Leon Fletcher, Floyd Harper, Jr., Roland Jeffries, Samuel Krauthoff, Patrick Lollis, Eugene Lytle, Jr., Harry McDonald, Lewis Park, Jr., James Seibel, Theodore Smith, John Henry Smith, Jr., Frederick Snyder, Sanford Thomson, Jr.

Sunday morning

2007-10-28T06:25:00.000-06:00

This morning, as I made my way to church, I had my first encounter with this season's morning frost. I did not expect it. I had not heard of its prediction. It was just there. There is an acute certainty that the fall is fully upon us when the frost arrives. There is a physical realization of our ultimate vulnerability to nature when the cold creeps across the landscape and leaves a faint shroud behind. I am good with that. Too often it seems we think ourselves invulnerable, immutable, invincible. I know I am none of these things; however, hubris is a strong narcotic. So God paints the landscape with a glistening shimmer and we are reminded, as the cold grips our flesh, we are only human. Soon the bone-chilling cold and the winds from the west will add an exclamation point to this lesson. I am good with that.

Condos near the Plaza

2007-10-24T14:42:00.001-06:00

I received an email today from the Southmoreland Neighborhood Association regarding the proposed demolition of eleven apartment buildings between Main St. and Oak St. on Cleaver Blvd. These eleven building would be replaced by a $90 million hotel complex with fifty condominiums. Before I add anymore to this story, I must confess I am a bit distressed by this news. The area in question is an interesting, reasonably priced, young adult community. Many students live there. It is an interesting part of a diverse neighborhood with an ever-diminishing number of affordable apartments left; conversely, condos abound. The Wilson Development Group, a local group with some history, plans to change dramatically the residential aspect of this part of the neighborhood, replacing a hundred or more affordable apartments with a fifty high end condos and, I am guessing, a very upscale hotel. This just does not seem a good thing.

However, there is more. This $90 million project in what has to be considered a fairly well developed area of the city is asking for $15 million in tax increment financing (TIF). We are not talking about a depressed area or urban blight. This is the Plaza. I am confused. I am intrigued by this and may very well go to the November 7, 7 p.m. meeting at Community Christian just to better understand what is happening.

stan

++Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, speaks of children

2007-10-11T08:21:00.001-06:00

Curiously, given the focus on how we as a nation will respond to the needs of children, ABC Williams recently spoke to a conference on children. Below is a excerpt:

ACNS 4328 | LAMBETH | 10 OCTOBER 2007

Archbishop of Canterbury - children 'not expendable'

In a video address to the Kids Company conference taking place today, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, outlined his support for Kids Company and the work that they do, saying that the greatest privilege was being able to hear from the children directly: "what they think a real childhood is like, we all need to hear that, they know what they are missing, they know something of the privation that's at the heart of their lives. They know what they need and we need to hear it."

The Archbishop also called on the government to invest in the vulnerable children in our society:

"It's been said sometimes that you can gauge the temperature, the kind of moral climate of a society by looking at the way it treats its most vulnerable people.... What do we do on behalf of those who don't have voices, who don't have leverage, how do we bring their voices into public discussion? Are we a society where people are prepared to advocate for those who don't have voices of their own? Above all, are we prepared to put the necessary resource, skill and commitment, into the nurturing of human beings?"

Archbishop Williams goes on to say:

"Look around at our society and very often it seems as if we're prepared to countenance the fact that a very substantial percentage of our young people are expendable, they're left on the side of the road as we go on".

Health Care and Children

2007-10-04T08:48:00.000-06:00

I am not aware of all the circumstances of the current debate in Washington regarding health care for children, nor am I informed well enough to comment of the veto exercised by the President. I am certain all concerned have the benefit of their convictions.

A few notes:

1) the running total on the Iraq war is about $460 billion, and the tab is open.
2) by some estimates the total financial fraud total for the Iraq war may be as much as $80 billion through 2006. This may be on the high side, so let's say the range is somewhere between $40-80 billion.
3) The non-offset costs of the current administration's tax cuts(as implemented and without extension, they have an effective life span of 2001-20017) are projected to be $2 trillion. With interest to service this "non-offset cost", the total expands to $3.6 trillion. The benefits of these cuts are heavily weighted to small percentages of the population.
4) The childrens' health initiative, vetoed by our president, would cost $60 billion over five years and serve 10 million children--$1200 per child per year.

Ummmmmm . . . .
What would Jesus do?
Uhhhhhh . . . .
More challenging (as my youngest when she was 8 years old once asked me)
What will you do?

Reflections on the House of Bishops' Meeting---Bishop Barry Howe, Episcopal Diocese of West Missouri

2007-09-28T18:48:00.000-06:00

We met to listen to others share with us from the greater Anglican Communion; to observe the work of our Episcopal Church in the dioceses of Louisiana and Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina; and to respond to requests made of us by the Primates of the Anglican Communion. We were blessed by many of the retired bishops returning to join with us in this work. Our spouses were also present, sharing in a full program for them.

Those who were invited to join us from the greater Anglican Communion were the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates. These guests included the Chair of the Anglican Consultative Council, the Primate of New Zealand. Other Committee members were a Bishop from Central Africa, a laywoman from West Africa, the Primate of Australia, a laywoman from South Africa, the Primate of Jerusalem and the Middle East, and the Primate of Wales. The Executive Secretary of the Anglican Communion, Kenneth Kearnon, was also present. The Archbishop and four of these members of the ACC addressed us, sharing their perspectives on the challenges within the Anglican Communion and how these challenges have been affected by the actions and life of the Episcopal Church. We heard words of affirmation and words of chastisement. We were offered differing perspectives about the Primates’ expectations. And we received differing expectations about our response from several of them. All this was carried out in an atmosphere of mutual love and support for one another, and with gratefulness for our time together. The Archbishop was with us for two days. The other guests remained with us for the entire time we were gathered.

We entered into work projects selected for us by the Dioceses of Louisiana and Mississippi—all dealing with the rebuilding from the devastation of Katrina. We learned first-hand that what has been rebuilt, the necessary services that have been offered to people, and the compassionate presence with people has been the exclusive work of the Church. The Episcopal Church has been the leader in this work. Government structures and systems have been non-existent in their presence and in serving the people. In listening to many stories of the people, we nevertheless heard new hope in their hearts as they shared expressions of thanksgiving for the Church. In our personal work, Mary and I helped to build and plant new community gardens which are designed to grow abundant produce for the neighborhood.

Our work culminated in a response to the Primates and to the larger Church. (This response is also found on our website). We spent almost two full days in closed sessions with honest and respectful dialogue. Unfortunately a small group of dissident bishops, who appeared when the Archbishop was with us, immediately withdrew from our presence, and had no part in any of the dialogue. Without knowing any of the dynamics of our work together, they have been the first ones to issue statements to the media that condemn our response to the larger Church. The final response was affirmed by voice vote by at least ninety-eight percent of the bishops present. Such an affirmation is witness to the care we expressed for one another and the desire we had to honor all voices. We believe we have done this with the wondrous grace of God.

Those who were the Anglican Consultative Council representatives will now study our response and make a report with recommendations to the Archbishop of Canterbury. He has said that he will consult the Primates and others throughout the Communion before issuing his thoughts about our work. He has already stated that he was very pleased by how he observed our work together when he was present, and overjoyed with the wonderful work of the Episcopal Church in New Orleans and along the Gulf Coast.

We have responded to the spirit of the Windsor Report and to the Primates. We have asked that other Provinces of the Anglican Communion do the same, especially those who are promoting incursions into our Dioceses to foster disunity. And we have said again how much we wish to be a part of the Anglican Communion without changes in structure and authority and other expectations that would in essence destroy the unity we have maintained in worship and world mission and mutual respect for provincial autonomy.

The leadership of our Presiding Bishop was grace-filled, forceful, and without guile. Her example models a blessed presence for all of us. We lived out who we are as brothers and sisters in Christ in this meeting, and we have told the larger Church who we are in our response asked of us. I am very grateful to be a part of the prophetic witness of the Episcopal Church, seeking to be inclusive of all and to minister to all. I come away from this meeting not at all anxious about the dissenting voices from afar, but saddened by the numbers in our own Church who are walking apart from us. We shall continue to do the work of the Lord we are called to do, focusing upon His mission for the building of God’s Kingdom.

House of Bishops Concluding Statement

2007-09-26T05:26:00.000-06:00

House of Bishops of The Episcopal Church
New Orleans, Louisiana
September 25, 2007
A Response to Questions and Concerns Raised by our Anglican Communion Partners:
In accordance with Our Lord's high priestly prayer that we be one, and in the spirit of Resolution A159 of the 75th General Convention, and in obedience to his Great Commission to go into the world and make disciples, and in gratitude for the gift of the Anglican Communion as a sign of the Holy Spirit's ongoing work of reconciliation throughout the world, we offer the following to The Episcopal Church, the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC), and the larger Communion, with the hope of "mending the tear in the fabric" of our common life in Christ.
"I do it all for the sake of the Gospel so that I might share in its blessings."
1 Corinthians 9:23.
Introduction
The House of Bishops expresses sincere and heartfelt thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury and members of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates for accepting our invitation to join us in New Orleans. By their presence they have both honored us and assisted us in our discernment. Their presence was a living reminder of the unity that is Christ's promised gift in the power of the Holy Spirit.
Much of our meeting time was spent in continuing discernment of our relationships within the Anglican Communion. We engaged in careful listening and straightforward dialogue with our guests. We expressed our passionate desire to remain in communion. It is our conviction that The Episcopal Church needs the Anglican Communion, and we heard from our guests that the Anglican Communion needs The Episcopal Church.
The House of Bishops offers the following responses to our Anglican Communion partners. We believe they provide clarity and point toward next steps in an ongoing process of dialogue. Within The Episcopal Church the common discernment of God's call is a lively partnership among laypersons, bishops, priests, and deacons, and therefore necessarily includes the Presiding Bishop, the Executive Council, and the General Convention.

Summary
• We reconfirm that resolution B033 of General Convention 2006 (The Election Of Bishops) calls upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion."
• We pledge as a body not to authorize public rites for the blessing of same-sex unions.
• We commend our Presiding Bishop's plan for episcopal visitors.
• We deplore incursions into our jurisdictions by uninvited bishops and call for them to end.
• We support the Presiding Bishop in seeking communion-wide consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
• We call for increasing implementation of the listening process across the Communion and for a report on its progress to Lambeth 2008.
• We support the Archbishop of Canterbury in his expressed desire to explore ways for the Bishop of New Hampshire to participate in the Lambeth Conference.
• We call for unequivocal and active commitment to the civil rights, safety, and dignity of gay and lesbian persons.
Discussion
Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention
The House of Bishops concurs with Resolution EC011 of the Executive Council. This Resolution commends the Report of the Communion Sub-Group of the Joint Standing Committee of the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates of the Anglican Communion as an accurate evaluation of Resolution B033 of the 2006 General Convention, calling upon bishops with jurisdiction and Standing Committees "to exercise restraint by not consenting to the consecration of any candidate to the episcopate whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church and will lead to further strains on communion." The House acknowledges that non-celibate gay and lesbian persons are included among those to whom B033 pertains.
Blessing of Same-Sex Unions
1We, the members of the House of Bishops, pledge not to authorize for use in our dioceses any public rites of blessing of same-sex unions until a broader consensus emerges in the Communion, or until General Convention takes further action. In the near future we hope to be able to draw upon the benefits of the Communion-wide listening process. In the meantime, it is important to note that no rite of blessing for persons living in same-sex unions has been adopted or approved by our General Convention. In addition to not having authorized liturgies the majority of bishops do not make allowance for the blessing of same-sex unions. We do note that in May 2003 the Primates said we have a pastoral duty "to respond with love and understanding to people of all sexual orientations." They further stated, "…[I]t is necessary to maintain a breadth of private response to situations of individual pastoral care."
Episcopal Visitors
We affirm the Presiding Bishop's plan to appoint episcopal visitors for dioceses that request alternative oversight. Such oversight would be provided by bishops who are a part of and subject to the communal life of this province. We believe this plan is consistent with and analogous to Delegated Episcopal Pastoral Oversight (DEPO) as affirmed by the Windsor Report (paragraph 152). We thank those bishops who have generously offered themselves for this ministry. We hope that dioceses will make use of this plan and that the Presiding Bishop will continue conversation with those dioceses that may feel the need for such ministries. We appreciate and need to hear all voices in The Episcopal Church.
Incursions by Uninvited Bishops
We call for an immediate end to diocesan incursions by uninvited bishops in accordance with the Windsor Report and consistent with the statements of past Lambeth Conferences and the Ecumenical Councils of the Church. Such incursions imperil common prayer and long-established ecclesial principles of our Communion. These principles include respect for local jurisdiction and recognition of the geographical boundaries of dioceses and provinces. As we continue to commit ourselves to honor both the spirit and the content of the Windsor Report, we call upon those provinces and bishops engaging in such incursions likewise to honor the Windsor Report by ending them. We offer assurance that delegated episcopal pastoral care is being provided for those who seek it.
Communion-wide Consultation
In their communiqué of February 2007, the Primates proposed a "pastoral scheme." At our meeting in March 2007, we expressed our deep concern that this scheme would compromise the authority of our own primate and place the autonomy of The Episcopal Church at risk. The Executive Council reiterated our concerns and declined to participate. Nevertheless, we recognize a useful role for communion-wide consultation with respect to the pastoral needs of those seeking alternative oversight, as well as the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian persons in this and other provinces. We encourage our Presiding Bishop to continue to explore such consultation in a manner that is in accord with our Constitution and Canons.
The Listening Process
The 1998 Lambeth Conference called all the provinces of the Anglican Communion to engage in a "listening process" designed to bring gay and lesbian Anglicans fully into the Church's conversation about human sexuality. We look forward to receiving initial reports about this process at the 2008 Lambeth Conference and to participating with others in this crucial enterprise. We are aware that in some cultural contexts conversation concerning homosexuality is difficult. We see an important role for the Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) in this listening process, since it represents both the lay and ordained members of our constituent churches, and so is well-placed to engage every part of the body in this conversation. We encourage the ACC to identify the variety of resources needed to accomplish these conversations.
The Lambeth Conference
Invitations to the Lambeth Conference are extended by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Those among us who have received an invitation to attend the 2008 Lambeth Conference look forward to that gathering with hope and expectation. Many of us are engaged in mission partnerships with bishops and dioceses around the world and cherish these relationships. Lambeth offers a wonderful opportunity to build on such partnerships.
We are mindful that the Bishop of New Hampshire has not yet received an invitation to the conference. We also note that the Archbishop of Canterbury has expressed a desire to explore a way for him to participate. We share the Archbishop's desire and encourage our Presiding Bishop to offer our assistance as bishops in this endeavor. It is our fervent hope that a way can be found for his full participation.
Justice and Dignity for Gay and Lesbian Persons
It is of fundamental importance that, as we continue to seek consensus in matters of human sexuality, we also be clear and outspoken in our shared commitment to establish and protect the civil rights of gay and lesbian persons, and to name and oppose at every turn any action or policy that does violence to them, encourages violence toward them, or violates their dignity as children of God. We call all our partners in the Anglican Communion to recommit to this effort. As we stated at the conclusion of our meeting in March 2007: "We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God."

A Christian Foreign Policy

2007-09-12T11:30:00.000-06:00

I have listened to the reports made to the Senate and the House these last few weeks and find the variety of "truths" exasperating. It is as if we are able to construct variable truths from a single collection of facts (a collection from the outset highly suspect anyway) that respond to whatever political or ideological constituency we want to persuade or contradict. I am left bewildered and not altogether confident any plan proposed by the opposing elements of our supposed "united" government merit my confidence or my hope. I am left to imagine for myself.

As a priest of the church I ask myself this question, "what would be a foreign policy reflective of my faith values in this circumstance?" And I pray for inspiration.

On a long drive back from a clergy continuing ed event in the northwest corner of Missouri, I am thinking about this. Suddenly, my thoughts trip upon the most obvious answer--prayer. Not the generic prayers for peace and goodwill so often contained in our liturgical prayers. Not the "safe" prayers implying the nobility of our cause because God is, after all, a good citizen of these United States. Not these. I trip upon the realization that I am not praying for my enemy. Jesus could not be clearer about this. "You have heard how it was said, you will love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say this to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you . . . For if you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Do not even the tax collectors do as much? . . . You must therefore set no bounds to your love, just as your heavenly Father sets none to his." (Matthew 5.43-48 and the parallel in Luke 6.27-36). It is hard to exegete yourself out of the straight forward, radical suggestion Jesus makes here. I am not praying for my enemy. In the book of Exodus we even read we are to return our enemy's lost property (Exodus 23.4-5). Paul in Romans tells us to feed and water our enemy (12.14-21). I am not praying for my enemy.

I wonder what would happen on Sunday if I prayed aloud for Usama Bin Laden or Al Qaeda? What would happen if I, if we, prayed for our enemy? Not for their defeat; rather, a prayer of God being present to them. What would happen if the Christian community of the nation had a day of fasting a prayer for the benefit of our enemy. I have a hunch I might not win a popularity contest with this suggestion. However, it is hard to avoid the suggestion of scripture that a foreign policy of just such a prayer is the expectation. I am reminded of an oft repeated aphorism of Christianity, "it is not so much that it has been tried and failed as it is that it has not been tried at all" (a phrase claimed by many in slightly differing variations).

I do not have much hope in the current foreign policy or military strategies of our country. I lament the wasteful exposure of true American heroes--the soldier--to purposeless violence and death. I grieve the tremendous loss of life among the Iraqis. Is it time for the Christian community to claim its own dominical foreign policy? Pray for your enemy!

Hedge Funds

2007-09-02T06:18:00.000-06:00

The Kansas City Star reported this past week the "20 highest-earning managers of private equity firms and hedge funds had an average income of $675.5 million last year."(about 20X the average annual income of the leaders of publicly traded companies). The story went on to compare that with the average American worker who would, on average, earn 1/22,255th that amount. Quoting from a report of the Insitute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy, the article in the Star noted the disparity as a significant concern. "Recognizing that leadership deserves financial reward, the report focused more on the 'How much is enough?' question and the social responsibility of the income leaders." The report stated, "Private equity managers, to extract such massive personal rewards out of the companies that sit in their portfolios, typically make decisions--on matters ranging from job cuts to pensions--that place steady downward pressure on the U.S. working standards." The Star noted despite the tremendous income the private equity and hedge fund managers receive, because of the peculiarities of the tax law, they pay taxes at the 15% capital gains rate instead of the 35% ordinary income rate.

To put this in some perspective, these top 20 equity/hedge managers would, on average, reach the maximum income taxed for Social Security purposes in the first 30 minutes of their first day at work at the beginning of the year.

My question:
What kind of hedge fund would Jesus run(WKOHFWJR bracelet)?

Capital Punishment

2007-08-30T08:28:00.000-06:00

Kenneth Foster Jr. is scheduled to be executed in Texas tonight (8/30) for murder. Both the prosecution and the defense agree he never killed anybody. The murder occurred as he was sitting in a car 80 feet away as one of his friends robbed and shot the victim. There is conflicting evidence as to Mr. Foster's knowledge of the actual murder's intent. As part of a group of four, Mr. Foster and his friends had already robbed four other person the same evening with no one else being killed. Two other persons in the car are serving life sentences because they agreed to testify for the prosecution. Mr. Foster, 19yo at the time, did not agree to testify and was subsequently charged with murder and convicted under Texas law (the actual murderer was executed in 2006).

What do you think?

stan+

I am back

2007-07-13T12:35:00.000-06:00

After three weeks out on continuing education leave, I am back. As soon as I sort thru the mail and get everything caught up, I will resume my posts. Thanks for your patience. stan+

The poured-out church

2007-05-31T15:36:00.000-06:00

Faith matters
May 29, 2007, The Christian Century Vol. 124, No. 11, p. 35
The poured-out church
by Barbara Brown Taylor

There is nothing like writing a book called Leaving Church for discovering how many things people can make of a title like that. The church of the title is Grace-Calvary Church in Clarkesville, Georgia. Leaving is what I did in 1997 when I resigned from parish ministry. In the year since the book came out, I have received thousands of letters, most so poignant that I have to hold my heart while I read them.

What I read above all is a rich mix of love and grief: love for the mainline churches that have formed the faithful, and grief that so many of those churches have run out of holy steam. The love part makes the grief part hard to articulate. With Mother Church in such fragile shape, who will complain about her cooking? Better to learn to live with hunger than to say something that may come across as ungrateful or disloyal.

This tender protectiveness is so understandable that congregations may not notice how it turns in on itself. Placing oxygen masks over their own faces before they hold one out to anyone else, churches can decide that buying a new sound system is a higher priority than getting a new freezer for the community kitchen. Finding a new youth minister can take precedence over finding a home for a new family from Sudan. When the body is hemorrhaging members, self-preservation trumps all other concerns.

At least one reason for the urgency is that the church is held to be the place of divine transformation. The church is where people say yes both to God and to one another. The church is where Christ turns our water into wine. The church is where people come to die and rise again in new life. These powerful warrants become even stronger when the church is set against "the world." The world is where prodigals squander their inheritance in loose living. The world is where the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. The world is where Pilate decides who lives and who dies.

At a more contemporary level, the world is where people lie in bed on Sunday mornings reading the New York Times or catch a late brunch with their children after soccer practice. The world is where teenagers meet their friends at the mall instead of at Wednesday night prayer service and where couples are wed at ski resorts by friends licensed for the occasion instead of at churches by ministers who have known them all their lives. It is also where mothers sit in crowded emergency rooms with their feverish babies because they have no coverage to go anywhere else and workers work double shifts for less than a living wage.

And yet when I consider my life of faith, this world is clearly where my transformation has taken place. It is in the world that I have met the people who have changed me—some of them believers, but far more of them not—people who have loved me, fought me, shamed me, forgiven me, sanding down my edges on one side while they broke whole ragged chunks of me off the other. The world is where I have been struck dumb by beauty, by cruelty, by human invention and greed. The world is where my notions of God have been destroyed, reformed, chastened, redeemed. The world is where I have occasionally been good for something and where I have done irreparable harm.

The reason I know this, however, is that the church has given me the eyes with which I see, as well as the words with which I speak. The church has given me a community in which to figure out what has happened to me in the world. It has given me a place to love and grieve, within a tradition far older and wiser than I. It is the church that has poured me into the world, in other words—which is counterintuitive. How can a church survive that keeps pouring itself into the world? I cannot possibly say. All I know is the gospel truth: those willing to give everything away are the ones with anything worth keeping; those willing to look death full in the face are the ones with the most abundant lives. Go figure.

All I can figure is that any body of believers whose faith is funded by a giving God will find their lives by giving too—not reasonably, so that there is plenty left for sheet music and utility bills, but lavishly, so that the survival of the institution is always and blessedly in question.

What I cannot figure is how any church organized around the self-donation of Jesus can stay invested in self-preservation. What would it look like for a church to lay down its life for its friends? If Philippians 2:5-8 were rewritten for the congregation, how might it sound?

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus—
you who, though called to be God's body in this world
did not regard your dearness to God as something to be
exploited,
but emptied yourselves,
taking the form of slaves,
being born in the likeness of Christ himself.
And being found in human form like him,
you humbled yourselves
and became obedient to the point of your own
dissolution—
even death before your time.

Leaving church, I believe, is what church is for—leaving on a regular basis, leaving to see what God is up to in the world and joining God there, delivering all the riches of the institution to those who need them most, in full trust that God will never leave the church without all that it needs to live.

Memorial Day

2007-05-24T12:55:00.001-06:00

As we approach this weekend, I remind everyone to remember the important civil holiday we will be celebrating--no, not the end of school--Memorial Day. This Monday we set aside time to remember that freedom is never free. Regardless of political or policy differences that might influence our opinions on the war or the administration, none of us should ever forget the devotion and commitment of the men and women of the armed forces. Forgoing their right to an opinion, they commit to serve as instructed by the duly elected, constitutional government of this country. Many come home safely, others come home injured, and, sadly, some come home in body bags. Click on the title above to be reminded of the cost of freedom. Take some time on Memorial Day to remember the people who have died for you and me.

Moral Consistency

2007-05-16T16:48:00.000-06:00

Last evening, during one of the political party debates, I observed an interesting conundrum.

One of the candidates was berating another on the matter of abortion. He suggested there could not be accommodation of abortion or of differing opinions regarding abortion. The candidate suggested if something was morally wrong, it should be resisted and opposed. In fact, he elaborated, a person should do all in his or her power to defeat any provision for something that is morally wrong. This comment received applause and approval.

Later, in the same debate, a hypothetical regarding torture was raised, “Is it okay to use torture in the war on terror?” One of the candidates not only applauded extreme measures regarding the treatment of suspected terrorists, he also suggested the resources for the use of such extreme measures should be expanded. “Water boarding” (a broadly acknowledged form of torture for which the US has prosecuted those who have used this method in WWII) was mentioned as an acceptable method according to at least one of the candidates. This comment received audience applause and apparent approval.

My question—If we accept the first premise--if something is morally wrong it should be resisted, opposed, and even outlawed--does the acceptance and apparent support of torture in the war on terror suggest these candidates do not believe torture to be morally wrong?

As a Christian, I find questions of moral ethics to be both challenging and demanding. Consistency is the most challenging aspect of moral, ethical, and religious living. The example above seems, at least to me, to be an example of the difficulty we are having maintaining any kind of consistent moral ethic.

Just an observation from a pilgrim.

Let's Talk

2007-05-07T20:04:00.000-06:00

The following editorial appears in the May 1, 2007 volume of The Christian Century. It is worth a few moments of your time:

Talk back
It has become common in political circles of late to refuse even to talk with one's enemies. President Bush refuses to talk with Syria's president Bashir Assad. Tom DeLay, back on the political scene as a blogger, scoffed when asked to explain why he wouldn't speak with House Democrats: "Why would I speak with the enemy?" In this Manichaean universe, one keeps one's hands unsullied and avoids contact with one's vile antagonist.

A different attitude toward the enemy was evident after radio commentator Don Imus described the Rutgers women's basketball team as so many "nappy-headed hos." The outcry eventually led CBS and MSNBC to fire him. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton led the public hue and cry. Advertisers pulled their support from Imus in the Morning. Suddenly a man who had gotten away with calling Colin Powell a "sniffling weasel" and New Mexico governor Bill Richardson a "fat sissy," and who had said U.S. diplomats talking to Saudi Arabian diplomats should "take those towels around their heads and wipe their noses with them," was out of a job. Given Americans' taste for shock jocks, it's likely he'll be back on the air—or someone like him will fill his spot.

But it was the Rutgers players themselves who made the most impressive response. They demanded more than Imus's punishment. They wanted to engage him and tell him how his comments made them feel. They wanted to say how it felt to have their moment of glory—reaching the women's national title game—stolen from them. They wanted to tell him why racist and misogynist language is so painful to hear.

The Rutgers women wanted to introduce themselves to Imus, and in the process they introduced themselves to the world—not just as successful athletes, but as people: Essence Carson is an accomplished musician; Katie Adams was her high school's valedictorian; Epiphanny Prince's accomplishments inspired her mother and grandmother to enroll in college; Matee Ajavon scored 20 points against Duke even though she has a titanium rod inserted in her leg. In the much-circulated photo of the Rutgers team gathered at their press conference, the women looked pained, but dignified. That spoke volumes about the maturity of this group of college women compared to the juvenile antics of a media star.

The Rutgers women named the wrong, and then engaged their enemy face to face. They worked toward a difficult reconciliation, the kind in which hearts and minds can actually be changed. The team said of the Imus controversy: "We hope that this will serve as a catalyst for change." They did their part, and also showed the rest of us how it can be done.

by the Century editors

Ravine a l'Anse, Haiti

2007-05-05T15:10:00.000-06:00

St. Paul's Kansas City MO supports an Episcopal parish and school in Ravine a l'Anse, Haiti. Click on the Title of this post and you will be taken to a collection of pictures of the recent dedication of the church there. In the midst of recent tragedies in our country and community, it is good to be able to celebrate this work in Haiti.

Follow-up to VT

2007-04-30T09:44:00.000-06:00

Sunday, 4/29, a few blocks from my home, a person shot and killed at least three people in a shopping center. The killings, excepting perhaps the first one, seems capricious and arbitrary. There is no reported evidence the shooter even knew the persons shot at the shopping mall.

During the days following VT, much has been said about how to prevent these kinds of tragedies. The most intriguing recommendation is that we all arm ourselves, shot first, and ask questions later. Or, as I have heard it stated before, "shoot everyone and let God sort it out." In this nation that professes a high, Christian morality, what does this kind of solution represent? Where is Jesus in this solution? Is it just me or do we seem to be regressing?

Virginia Tech

2007-04-23T05:39:00.000-06:00

I am wondering, how/what do you feel as you observe the tragedy of Virginia Tech?

ABC's of Anglicanism

2007-04-12T19:00:00.000-06:00

Many have asked questions about the events and circumstances being reported publicly about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. As you read the public details of this unfolding conversation, it might be useful to review briefly the four “Instruments of Unity” that form the structure of the Anglican Communion. Aside from the Archbishop ofCanterbury (ABC) whose status as a symbol of unity in Anglicanism is unassailable, three additional entities are included among the
so-called “Instruments of Unity”; of which, the Primates’ Meeting is the subject of most current attention. In addition to the ABC,the Instruments are:

1) The Lambeth Conference (LC) was established in 1867. Of the three more recent instruments, LC has the strongest claim to functionality as an instrument of unity. LC came about as the English Church found itself more a global religious community rather than an agency of the British Empire. There seemed a need for some additional unifying structure. Most of the resolutions of Lambeth 1867 applied to how the Communion would function inter-relationally and internationally. LC 1867 provided instrumentality to what was then only a loosely defined constellation of churches—what would become the Anglican Communion under the leadership of Archbishop Charles T. Longley. Before calling into session such a significant representation of the episcopate from around the world, he expressed reservations, stating. “It should be distinctly understood that at this meeting no declaration of faith shall be made, and no decision come to what 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.”[1]

2) The Anglican Consultative Council (ACC) was formed in response to a resolution of LC 1968 (Res 69) suggesting the need for more frequent and more representative contact in the Communion than was possible through a once-a-decade conference of bishops. The ACC meets every two to three years. It is a subsidiary agency created by action of the Lambeth Conference. The governing bodies of each constituent church of the Anglican Communion formally accepted its originating constitution and it includes lay and ordained representation. Regarding matters of disunity, its constitutionally defined role is advisory to the LC and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The ACC offers no additional independent instrumentality to the unity of the Anglican Communion.

3) The Primates’ Meeting (PM): In response to a request by the LC 1978 (Res. 12), Archbishop Donald Coggan established the Primates’ Meeting in 1978 as an opportunity for “leisurely thought, prayer and deep consultation”. Created solely for the use and benefit of the LC, the PM’s creation involved no process of review or approval by the constituent churches of the Anglican Communion. The PM has no public operational document and involves only those bishops considered heads (or Primates) of the autonomous, constituent churches of Anglicanism. The ABC serves as the head of the Primates’ Meeting. Historically, the PM has refused to acknowledge anything more than a consultative and advisory role to the LC and the ABC. It is a subsidiary organization, offering no officially sanctioned or independently authoritative instrumentality to the unity of the Communion.

While it is not my intention to comment in detail on either the recent demands of the Primates’ Meeting or the response of the US House of Bishops, I do confess an attitude of skepticism toward the implied magisterial authority suggested by the demands of the Episcopal Church made by the recent Primates’ Meeting. Never before in the brief history of the Anglican Communion has any structure or body claimed such broad or administrative authority over the internal affairs of the autonomous churches of the Anglican community. The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church, forced in this instance to act as arbiter of Anglican Reformation history, received the recent communiqué of the Primates’ Meeting respectfully as a document of interest. However, they rightly concluded the Episcopal Church has no obligation to respond to or act upon a communiqué from what is in reality merely a subcommittee of the Lambeth Conference, especially when that communiqué made demands that ignored the ecclesiastical history of the Anglican Communion, ignored the canonical integrity of the Episcopal Church, and required an agency of primacial oversight within the Episcopal Church that would be overseen by an external agency responsible to the Primates. For the House of Bishops to do otherwise would suggest an acceptance of a centralized, magisterial authority heretofore antithetical to the Reformation spirit of Anglicanism. Since the Primates’ Meeting, as an institution, has never been approved or granted authority or power officially by the Anglican Communion, the Episcopal Church and the General Convention should await proper communication and direction before it considers any response in the current controversy. A communiqué from the Primates’ Meeting, even over the signature of the ABC functioning as its president, does not meet this standard. This can come only from Archbishop Rowan Williams functioning independently under his sole authority as the single most authentic representation of the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

[1] from the Chronicle of Convocation of Canterbury, Feb. 15, 1867 as reported in Origin and History of The Lambeth Conferences of 1867 and 1878. ed. By Randall T. Davidson, Dean of Windsor, 1888

the Bible in first person

2007-04-06T19:36:00.000-06:00

The following editorial appears in the current edition of Christian Century. What is your story of the Bible? How has it guided your formation?

Christian Century Editor's Desk
April 03, 2007

Many Christians like to think that they take the Bible as it stands, but in reality they take the Bible as they understand it. What we get out of the Bible often has as much to do with what we bring to the text as with the text itself. Differing biblical interpretations often arise from the different theological grids that are imposed on scripture. For instance, conservatives tend to look at an issue like homosexuality through the prism of the holiness of God, whereas progressives tend to approach it with a focus on the justice of God. One approach tends toward an exclusive reading of the text, the other toward an inclusive reading.

It is right that we argue over our readings of the Bible, for it is the charter document of our faith. Much better to argue over scripture than to ignore the texts that give us our identity as Christians and our orientation for life.

But since how we read the Bible and even how we argue about it is shaped by its place in our own faith development, it would be good to take some time out from contentious debates about the Bible to reflect on our personal experience with the Bible. In other words, each of us has a story to tell about our journey with the Bible from childhood on. For some, the Bible has been a freeing and life-giving text; others are painfully aware of ways that the Bible has been used as a hammer or wedge—to put some people in their supposed place ("a woman's place is in the home") or to drive people apart ("practicing homosexuals don't belong in the church or pulpit").

In telling our stories, we might ask ourselves: What aspects of the Bible did we absorb from our families? Who influenced the way we think about scripture? What were the formative experiences that led us to approach the Bible as we do? What parts of scripture have spoken most deeply to us? In what ways have we made the biblical story our own story? How has our view of scripture changed over time?

To tell such stories, people need a safe space, a place where they won't be judged or censured. A helpful model of such storytelling is found in Telling Our Stories: Personal Accounts of Engagement with Scripture, edited by Ray Gingerich and Earl Zimmerman (Cascadia). Telling individual stories honestly won't dissolve the differences that divide us, but it can lead to a better sense of why and how people reach the conclusions they do.

Tenebrae, Wednesday of Holy Week

2007-04-05T09:42:00.000-06:00

Last night, as we came to the end of Tenebrae, a young girl carried the Christ Candle out of the church. Then, in total darkness, following the strepitus, this same young girl carried the Christ light down the long aisle of the nave, through the chancel, and replaced it on the altar. In that total darkness, as only the light of Christ illuminated the space, I wondered if God cared that it was a young female acolyte that carried his light. My mind expanded upon this question--does the morphology or physiology of the person who carries the Christ light matter to God? Does the perfection or lack thereof matter to God? Does the wisdom or simplicity matter to God? As the young girl walked forward into the darkness, the light of Christ shown bright. I could not see her form, only the light of Christ. It did not matter. All those differences that bring walls of separation, fear,and hate crashing down between us do not matter. Only the light of Christ penetrating the darkness matters.

Then, paradoxically, an illumination of Eliot's words struck me

"I said to my soul, be still, and let the dark come upon you which shall be the darkness of God."

Statement on the March House of Bishops' Meeting

2007-04-03T12:24:00.000-06:00

The following is a thoughtful statement by The Rt. Rev. Barry Howe, Bishop of the Diocese of West Missouri:

The meeting of the House of Bishops’ in March was the best I have ever attended during the time of my episcopate. It was characterized by dignity and concern for all, and by a strong sense of unity in the midst of differing opinions and concerns.

We spent a great deal of time sharing in the ways in which our mission as a church might find new strength as we seek to serve the Lord’s will. It was with awe and thanksgiving that we heard from one another about the good work that is being done in congregations and dioceses everywhere—work that addresses basic needs in local, regional, and international settings. And we were challenged by expert speakers in understanding a basic theology for our mission work, and in working for environmental stability.

The Communique from the Primates’ Meeting in Tanzania was the subject of much
discussion and ultimate action. In our discussion, we recognized that what has been the basic understanding of the relationship of the churches in the Anglican Communion is being replaced by a new understanding. From the mid-nineteenth century, the Anglican Communion has always been understood as a group of autonomous churches who worship in the Anglican tradition, whose polity is built around the episcopate and local expressions of community, and who seek to work together in growing mission work throughout the world. It has been a mission-driven alliance under the spiritual leadership of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In the past decade, a new understanding of the Anglican Communion seems to be developing which seeks to be structural in the alliance of the churches. The structure appears to be one where authority is becoming centralized,and where creedal formulas and covenants are being proposed. This is a radical shift in the relationship of thirty-nine autonomous churches.

This shift is very evident in the Communique. And our response indicates our deep
concern about these changes. We were very clear that we wish to remain a vital part of the Anglican Communion, and will strive to do so, most especially in continuing to be mission partners with our sister churches. We were also certain that we would take part in the creation of a covenant among the churches—one that all the churches could support. But we could not accept the directives from the Primates that would not be compatible with our own polity and canons. In particular, the Primates’ pastoral scheme for appointing a Primatial Vicar for congregations and dioceses not willing to accept the ministry of the Presiding Bishop would violate the principles of autonomy, change the Windsor process which has been set up for participating together, and create a precedent that would have far-reaching implications for further challenges that arise in the Communion. The Primates simply have never been given the authority to make such demands upon any of the churches in the Communion. Our response was made with grace and without rancor, and noted that since the General Convention of 2003, we have responded in good faith to all the requests we have received from our Anglican partners.

The issues that threaten the basic understanding of the Anglican Communion and the relationships of the member churches have much to do with power shifts, with cultural differences made evident by globalization, and with the rise of a new fundamentalism which is occurring throughout the world. While the issue of sexuality has become a flash-point for some, it is only so within the dynamics of these larger issues.

I believe that the bishops acted very wisely, and with a strong sense of unity. I also believe that most of us are ready and eager to continue to be full partners in the Anglican Communion, and have urged our Executive Council and the House of Deputies of General Convention to express this same eagerness. In all things we made the affirmation that our attention would be focused on the essence of Christ’s own mission in the world.

+BARRY R. HOWE