Yet Another Look

At what could result from Rowan Williams' push for an Anglican Covenant. Go read Jim Naughton's The right gains ground. Here is the paragraph that caught my eye:

Yet if Rowan Williams succeeds in his misguided effort to establish a single-issue magisterium that determines a church's influence within the communion, a significant risk remains. That risk is run not by the Anglican left, which has nothing practical to lose, nor by the Anglican right, whose leaders embarrass less easily than Donald Trump and don't fear public opprobrium. Rather, the parties at risk are the Church of England and the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which may find themselves at the head of a communion synonymous with the agenda of the American right.

Hat tip to Thinking Anglicans.

Peace,
Jeff

A Sampling From The Tempest In The Anglican Teapot

Although I haven't been commenting on the Tempest in the Anglican Teapot, and for a while I'd even stopped reading most of the Anglican and Episcopal blogs, that doesn't mean I haven't kept up with the goings on. A couple of weeks ago I ventured back into Anglican/Episcopal blogland, although I'm a bit more selective about which ones I read. Same tempest; same teapot.

This morning, when I should be working on my sermon for tomorrow, I have been browsing the blogosphere. Here is a sampling of what I've been reading:

• Mark Harris' post on his Preludium about the former bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, Robert Duncan
• Barbi Click writing about the former bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Forth Worth Jack Iker's obsession on her Feathers and Faith
• Jan Nunley's post on the persistent erroneous timeline regarding Gene Robinson's divorce on her Jawbones
• Father Christian's GAFCON blog with this post on Matt Kennedy's whining about the goings on in Binghamton (Father Christian popped up around the time of the GAFCON conference and is a hoot)
• Finally, a dose of real life from Elizabeth Kaeton, told with her usual humor, warmth, and view of the world on her Telling Secrets

If you want to see what the orthodites are saying, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding their sites.

And now back to the sermon, which seems to have changed direction for the fifth time in the last 48 hours...

Peace,
Jeff

Observations At The Church Center

One of the exercises we did Wednesday with Visions was the Power Walk. "Those of you who are X move to my left, and those of you who are Y move to my right." It is one version of a familiar ice breaker activity. There were some interesting learnings for us:

• Episcopalians and non-Episcopalians who work at the Episcopal Church Center are about equal in numbers.
• The number of clergy employed was vastly lower than most of us perceived. However, the number of clergy in positions of influence and power...
• When we separated into "those who grew up in middle class families" and "those who grew up in working class families," it was surprising to hear in later discussions how many people interpreted that as "well off" and "poor."
• The smallest group was those of us who identified as lesbian, gay, and bisexual.

While I was not surprised that we are a minority among the employees of the Episcopal Church Center, I was surprised at just how small that minority is. I was also startled at how vulnerable I felt standing there in that very small group. My next thought was, "And the orthodites [to borrow a new term from this post by Elizabeth Kaeton] think we're taking over the Episcopal Church?"

A lot of folks at the Church Center are still talking about the work Visions did with us. We hope that the leadership will follow up with more of this type of work over the course of the year and not let it drop saying, "Well, we've done our diversity bit, so we're good for a while."

Peace,
Jeff

From Conference To Movement To...?

The Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON), which was held in Jerusalem from 22-29 June 2008, is a spiritual movement to preserve and promote the truth and power of the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ as we Anglicans have received it. The movement is global: it has mobilised Anglicans from around the world.

GAFCON is not just a moment in time, but a movement in the Spirit, and
we hereby:

• launch the GAFCON movement as a fellowship of confessing Anglicans
• publish the Jerusalem Declaration as the basis of the fellowship
• encourage GAFCON Primates to form a Council.

--From the Introduction of the GAFCON Final Statement

Unable to bring their parallel communion into being, the rejectionists and their allies have decided they are a "movement":

It is a confessing fellowship in that its members confess the faith of Christ crucified, stand firm for the gospel in the global and Anglican context, and affirm a contemporary rule, the Jerusalem Declaration, to guide the movement for the future.

Perhaps they will pull off a schism in the future, but they will not be members of the historic Anglican Communion. Instead they will be a new denomination, not unlike the Missouri Synod Lutherans. Jerusalem Declaration Anglicans perhaps?

In any case, their declaration has some problems. Take a look at the Anglican Scotist's commentary, which is amongst the better ones.

And is it just me, or does "Primates Council" come across like "Windsor Bishops"?

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Casting Out

Reading Plan Text for May 30: John 16:1-7

Jesus continues to prepare his Disciples for what is to come. He warns them that they will be put out of the synagogues, as the religious leaders threatened to do to the blind man in Chapter 9 and the other leaders who believed in Chapter 12. He warns them that they will be killed by those

who will think that by doing so they are offering worship to God. And they will do so because they have not known the Father or me. (16:2-3)

Obviously, as discussed before, John's community faced this exile and shunning from the synagogues of their own time. Jesus' promise of the coming Advocate (the Holy Spirit) was--and is--an important one.

More and more Anglicans are learning what it is like to be cast out of their religious communities. Lbgt folks have been experiencing this for years. Now many conservatives are experiencing it. And now that they are experiencing that pain, they are attempting to take their communities--their churches--with them, casting out those who disagree with their actions.

That is one problem with their actions--the casting out of others who have been members of those churches. Another is that no one is actually casting them out, no matter what they say about lawsuits, etc. They have chosen to leave. They try to turn it around and say that the Episcopal Church has left them by its actions and heresy, but they are not being asked to leave their churches. They are trying to take their churches with them.

And finally, no one is trying to kill them or advocate for stringent legal sanctions against their personal liberty. No matter how the rejectionists try to twist it, a number of high-level Anglican leaders in the provinces to which they are "fleeing" have publicly supported proposed legislation curbing freedom for lbgt folks and spoken out against our civil liberties.

So where is the Advocate in all of this? Sometimes it's hard to tell. As Mom commented on my post of the other day, where was God when Matthew Shepherd was beaten and left to die?

Peace,
Jeffri

GAFCON Odds And Ends

It seems that GAFCON has a new logo. From the GAFCON website:

GAFCON has produced a new logo style and wording. Veritas means truth which is the vertical relation between God and humanity which is Christ. Uniti means united which is the horizontal relationship between all believers found in the body of Christ.Uniti now replaces Unium.

Unium, also means united, but as a non dictionary hapax legomenon could cause misunderstanding.

Go take a look. Is it my imagination, or is "Jerusalem 2008" more prominent than it was. GAFCON stands for Global Anglican Future CONFERENCE. And their program clearly shows conference sessions scheduled for their time in Jerusalem. And look at this piece posted on their web site They say

Pilgrims will visit traditional sites in Jerusalem during the pilgrimage June 22 – 29, 2008

but then they go on to say:

The goals of the GAFCON conference in Jerusalem are to:
1. Provide an opportunity for fellowship as well as to continue to experience and proclaim the transforming love of Christ.
2. Develop a renewed understanding of our identity as Anglican Christians.
3. Prepare for an Anglican future in which the Gospel is uncompromised and Christ-centered mission a top priority.

There are more workshop sessions planned than pilgrimage visits. But they aren't planning to try and take over the Anglican Communion, or split from it if they can't...

And my grandmother was the rightful queen of England.

Five Melbourne, Australia, delegates to GAFCON have started a blog to keep the folks back home up to date on the goings on at the...ummm... CONFERENCE--they even call it "the conference" in the subtitle to their blog. I'll be checking it out occasionally between now and GAFCON, and then I'll probably check it regularly for the duration of the CONFERENCE.

George Conger wrote this article posted on the Anglicans United site. I found these two paragraphs particularly interesting:

From among the 100 North American participants at Gafcon, chosen by the Bishop of Pittsburgh, the Rt Rev Robert Duncan (pictured), the majority of US Episcopal bishops will attend both Gafcon and Lambeth, arguing it is important to witness to the wider church the situation afflicting the American church.

Behind the scenes of the conference, however, attempts to forge a common front among the fissiparous elements of the Anglican right-wing will take place. While united in their opposition to the innovations of doctrine and discipline on offer from the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church, questions of women’s ordination, rivalries and jealousies between different American factions, as well as the traditional doctrinal divides between evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics have yet to be fully resolved.

Bishop Duncan selected? Who died and elected him Primate of the United States?

The second paragraph clearly shows those issues which will fracture any organization, be it the Anglican Communion if the rejectionists succeed in taking it over, or some conservative Anglican denomination created as a result of their planning.

Peace,
Jeffri

Of Polygamists, Gay Marriage, And Twisted Logic

Thursday a Texas appeals court ruled that the State Department of Family and Protective Services illegally removed the children from their homes at the ranch of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Shortly after the news hit the wires, Kendall Harmon posted the story on his blog. Given the way conversations about Christian marriage happen on Kendall's blog and Stand Firm (and many of the same folks comment on both blogs), I was interested in seeing what the comments were. Take a moment and go read them for yourself. Also read this post, this post, and their comments.

Now look at the comments on posts dealing with same-sex marriage on Kendall's blog here, here, and here.



Next, look at this post on Stand Firm. As with the first story on TitusOneNine, note the concern about children being taken away from their parents and the issue of home schooling. Now go look at the comments on this post (be warned, not only may contain poison, but there are over 370 Comments).


Whenever the subject of "gay marriage" comes up, inevitably the conservatives will bring in the "slippery slope" argument that approving gay marriage will lead to the approval of polygamy and worse. Nor is a gay household formed by marriage a healthy place for children, in their opinion. BUT, when it comes to the children being taken from their parents by the state, all of a sudden polygamy is not so bad. Especially since child welfare concerns often touch on the issues surrounding home schooling--something dear to the hearts of many conservatives.

What I often observe when reading many conservative and rejectionist bloggers and commentors is that their view of the "black and white" sides of an issue change with the issue under discussion. When talking about gay marriage, polygamy is evil. When talking about the rights of parents and children, polygamy is neutral.

Can you say "gray?"

Peace,
Jeffri

More GAFCON Gaffes, Glitches, and Glimmers

GAFCON is in the news and on the blogs these days. The major story, which broke late yesterday, is that the Most Rev. Mouneer Anis, Presiding Bishop of the Middle East and Jerusalem will not be attending. You can read about it in this post on Episcopal Cafe. Father Jake has also written about it here. In his commentary Jake uses the term "Rejectionist Anglicans" for those organizing and attending GAFCON. It fits, and I will probably adopt it moving forward. Thanks, Jake!

I also like Mark Harris' title for his comments on Archbishop Anis: GAFCON: A richness of embarrassments. I just wish I'd thought of it first.

Canon Terry Wong of the Province of Southeast Asia has written this thoughtful commentary about the upcoming conference, in which he says

...there are many Anglican clergy/leaders who have felt isolated and ‘displaced” through this period of crisis. GAFCON provides an opportunity for such clergy and leaders to meet others to find encouragement, bonds of fellowship and mission partnership together.

Of course, lbgt clergy have never felt "isolated and 'displaced.'"

The bishops of the Common Cause Partnership have called for "40 Days of Prayer" leading up to GAFCON. "40 Days of Prayer" is a concept/activity that is popular in evangelical circles and brought to a higher level of visibility by Rick Warren. It is also at the root of the 40 Days of Discernment program developed by the Rejectionists in Virginia as they prepared to pull their parishes out of the Episcopal Church. While the original concept was good--and biblically based--it's become trite and just one more way of saying, "See, we're holier than you."

And then there's this news release from the GAFCON organizers: 1,000 Christian leaders, 280 bishops to GAFCON in Jerusalem.

Over 1000 senior leaders from seventeen provinces in the Anglican Communion, representing 35 million church-going Anglicans, have registered for the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) in Jerusalem at the close of the online registration process. They include 280 bishops, almost all accompanied by their wives. Final attendance figures will depend on smooth processing of requested visas, and other factors.

So that's approximately 560 out of 1,000 who are bishops and bishops' wives. Of the remaining 440 one wonders how many are clergy and how many laity.

There's even a Wikipedia entry for GAFCON!

Peace,
Jeffri

Odds And Ends

Some odds and ends I've collected over the past couple of days.

Cutting Off Your Nose To Spite Your Face: From the Irish Blog Clerical Whispers we have "Vatican says prohibition against gays in seminaries is universal." Gay, and even homosexual, does NOT equal pedophile, or even ephebophile. They already have a clergy shortage...

Don't Read This With Anything In Your Mouth: There's a new blog from Father Christian called GAFCON (hat tip to the Mad Priest). I'm serious, if you value your computer, don't have anything in your mouth when you read it!

Gene's Not The Only One: It seems the Roman Catholic Church has their own Bishop Robinson who has become "an issue." Clerical Whispers posted this article about Geoffrey Robinson, the resigned Auxiliary Bishop of Sydney, Australia.

And This Surprises Us How? Jason Byassee wrote an article called "Anglican Angst" that appears in this week's Christian Century.

Peace,
Jeffri

Bible Study With The Bishops: Power Struggles

Reading Plan Text for May 5: John 11:45-57

The plot thickens. Jesus has raised Lazarus, and as happeneds over and over again, some of the witnesses believe him, and others go running to the Pharisees. They call a meeting of the Sanhedrin, the ruling council of the Jews. They determine that Jesus must be put to death because his acts threaten to bring the Roman rulers down on their heads. Jesus heads out of town, and the Sanhedrin issues a warrant for his arrest.

In his commentary, Burridge writes:

They [the Pharisees and the Sadducees] are frightened that 'the Romans will take away our holy place and our nation.' (11:48). They are not concerned bout whether what Jesus says is true, or if God's glory is really with him, but with their own control. The temple of God has become 'our place' and the people of God are 'our nation'. (p. 150)

I cannot help but think of our present situation in the Anglican Communion. I know that many of the conservatives within the Episcopal Church, and especially those who have left the Episcopal Church and placed themselves under the "guardianship" of other provinces, feel that the current leadership of our church is the current equivalent of the Sanhedrin. They see the leadership, and a "liberal cabal" behind it (and not so secretly, they say), ignoring Jesus or not believing in him at all. Many liberals see the entire thing as a power struggle to maintain power by those who were once in control and see that power slipping away.

But Burridge continues:

Ultimately their fears are realized in the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Romans in AD 70; with no temple and no power the Sadduces disappear, and the Pharisees are left to regroup Judaism around the law. (p. 151)

So who is so focused on the law that they can't see what Jesus is seeing? Again, the conservatives point their fingers at the liberal leadership of the Episcopal Church, claiming that the lawsuits are "Unchristian" and the deposition of conservative bishops illegal under the canons of the church. Of course, they are not above pulling out the rule book when it supports their purposes. And who is it that holds up a tiny handful of biblical passages that they claim are immutable law/rules for lbgt folks who want to be Christians? And who is it that is pushing for a Covenant, a set of rules, for the Anglican Communion? And who is it that once they have pulled the Anglican Communion apart will focus on the rules that will keep them "pure"?

Meanwhile, Jesus is out in the world doing God's work. Shouldn't we be doing the same?

Peace,
Jeffri

It Was Only A Matter Of Time

The Living Church reports

Sufficient legal grounds exist for presenting Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori for ecclesiastical trial on 11 counts of violating the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, according to a legal memorandum that has begun circulating among members of the House of Bishops.

A copy of the April 21 document seen by a reporter representing The Living Church states Bishop Jefferts Schori demonstrated a “willful violation of the canons, an intention to repeat the violations, and a pattern of concealment and lack of candor” in her handling of the cases of bishops Robert W. Duncan, John-David Schofield and William Cox, and that she “subverted” the “fundamental polity” of The Episcopal Church in the matter of the Diocese of San Joaquin.

The article's author, the Rev. George Conger, also posted the story on his own blog. Conger began trumpeting this line of thought back in March following the House of Bishops' meeting.

The timing of Conger's release of his story--within hours of this morning's release of the Presiding Bishop's letter to the House of Bishops regarding the process related to deposition, inhibition, renunciation and resignation of bishops--is not coincidental.

Nor is it surprising that Matt Kennedy and the usual cohort of commentors at Stand Firm are all over the story. Although the comments have not reached their usual level of vitriol at the time of this writing, I include here Mark Harris' warning regarding Stand Firm.

It was only a matter of time before the conservatives attempted action directly against the Presiding Bishop. The only thing that surprises me is that they waited so long.

Peace,
Jeffri

This Is Not An Apology

Recently Greg Griffith of StandFirm misidentified as Bishop Barbara Harris a woman in clerical dress in a photo taken at an October 27th Anti-War demonstration in San Francisco. The original post and the resulting nasty comments (another example of the site's "witch hunt" mentality) can be found archived by Jake here. When it turned out that the woman was not Bishop Harris, Greg posted an apology in which he wrote:

Well, I really stepped in it this time, accusing Bishop Barbara Harris in another thread (now removed out of respect for her) of marching in an anti-war march in San Francisco wearing a Palestinian kaffiyeh as a stole. Turns out it's not her.

I allowed past shows of support of Yassir Arafat and the Palestinians by Bishop Harris, like this, to influence my thinking, so when I happened across a photo of a woman in vestments bearing more than a striking resemblance to The Rev. Harris, I leaped to a conclusion I shouldn't have.

I apologize and ask for her forgiveness. This was an instance of my bearing false witness, albeit inadvertently, and I am sorry. My apologies to Bishop Harris are offered without qualification.

Now compare this to what Greg wrote in response to another comment in the thread about Elizabeth Kaeton's comments regarding Anne Kennedy:, addressing another commentor, in regards to Elizabeth's apology:

d---------,
Kaeton’s ‘apology’ is not an apology, plain and simple. An apology is not “I’m sorry that what I wrote hurt you, but I was completely justified in writing it because blah blah blah...”

By Greg's own definition, his apology is not an apology.

I seriously thought about titling this post "Apology Not Accepted," but then Greg was not apologizing to me. Just as Elizabeth was not apologizing to him but to Anne. However, I do not think it is too much to expect that Greg follow his own guidelines for an apology.

Peace,
Jeffri

Scheming Bishops?

In spite of my attempts to avoid the dreck over at Stand Firm, someone pointed me to a short post by Greg Griffith. It is a rather self-congratulatory piece--without details, of course--about how Stand Firm got a hold of a copy of a report for next week's meeting of the bishops of the Episcopal Church.

This particular bit had me rolling on the floor laughing:

...it was the work of a group, separated by a combined thousands of miles, all with their own kind of expertise, determined not to let this church be returned to an era of bishops scheming in secrecy...

Excuse me? Bishops scheming in secrecy? As if Duncan, Iker, Akinola, Minns, et. al. have been above board and completely open about their tactics in the attempts to oust or replace the Episcopal Church. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Or maybe it is okay because their scheming also involves clergy and laity? After all, they had to engage in a bit of sneakiness to get a hold of a report that was not meant for general consumption. And if it was not through stealth, then why didn't Greg just tell us the names of everyone who played a part in getting the report and how it was done, instead of posting this vague piece?

Transparency indeed!

Peace,
Jeffri

More Bishops For The Shadow Church

Today Archbishop Nzimbi of Kenya consecrated the Rev. William Murdoch and the Rev. Bill Atwood, both formerly of the Episcopal Church, bishops in the Church of Kenya. You can read joyful coverage of the celebration on any number of the usual conservative blogs, including TitusOneNine, Stand Firm, and BabyBlueOnline. On Sunday Archbishop Orombi of Uganda will consecrate the Rev. John Guernsey as a bishop in the Church of Uganda. I am sure we will see similar coverage of that consecration by the usual suspects on both sides of the aisle.

In June the Rt. Rev. Andrew Fairfield, retired Bishop of South Dakota, was received into the Church of Uganda. He joins the Rt. Rev. David Bena, retired Suffragan of Albany and now of CANA, in leaving the Episcopal Church for the Shadow Church.

The hope is that these bishops, along with others consecrated by other provinces, will be in place to step in when the Episcopal Church is replaced in the Anglican Communion by a conservative entity. Mind you, these are the same folks who keep beating the Windsor drum and insisting that the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada comply with the Windsor Report. The Episcopal Church is not yet "Windsor Compliant" in their eyes, yet neither are the provinces which continue to participate in consecrating bishops and cross provincial boundaries. If they feel that the Windsor Report is authoritative as a set of guidelines, then they should be following those guidelines. They cannot say, "The Episcopal Church is not being complying with the Windsor Report, and until it is, we are justified in continued border crossings." If they want to enforce it upon the Episcopal Church, they must also enforce it upon themselves. There is no "yes, but."

The Shadow Church waits anxiously for the TEC Bishops' meeting scheduled for the end of next month. They see it as the "do or die" moment for the Episcopal Church. In the meantime, they make more bishops for their hoped for conservative province in the United States.

Peace,
Jeffri

Nigerian Bishops In The News And The Blogosphere

The Church Times reports that Anglican Archbishop Peter Akinola's recent missive, "A Most Agonizing Journey towards Lambeth 2008," was extensively edited by CANA Bishop Martyn Minns. Given the amount of time Bishop Akinola spent conferring with then Rev. Minns during the Primates meeting in Dar es Salaam, this surprises us how? Given the fact that Archbishop Akinola spent time in Virginia with Bishop Minns immediately preceding the release of that missive, I ask again, this surprises us how?

I am not sure we can, or should, read too much into this revelation. I have worked in a variety of organizations, and it is not unusual for a direct report to substantially edit or even completely write letters and other communication for his or her supervisor--especially for CEO's of organizations. On the other hand, the almost frantic attempts over at StandFirm (as well as other conservative/reasserter blogs) to dismiss the edits as nothing do give one cause to wonder.

The bottom line, however, is that Archbishop Akinola signed it and is thus responsible for its content.

An infinitely more interesting document, supposedly written by a Nigerian Anglican bishop, appears on Mark Harris' Preludium. He was sent a copy of a draft letter said to have been written by Bishop Bena, late of Albany, now of CANA, that was left up on a public computer at Camp Allen, where the self-named "Windsor Complaint Bishops" met recently. The implication is that Bishop Bena had a hand in some communication between those bishops and the Archbishop of Canterbury. Interesting that the "WC Bishops" should be working with someone who has jumped ship and gone to the Province of Nigeria. And if they are, why are they?

Ultimately, the truth behind either of these letters may not amount to very much. It is the perceptions they leave behind that may very well have the greater effect upon the upcoming meeting in New Orleans of the bishops of the Episcopal Church.

Meanwhile, Clerical Whispers has a story about the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Nigeria here. Archbishop John Onaiyekan of Abuja is proposing a truth, reparation and reconciliation process for Nigeria, which is still suffering from the aftermath of a civil war, years of military rule, political corruption and rigged elections. As many issues as I--and many other people--have with the Roman Catholic Church, here we have a bishop proposing reconciliation and healing. What a concept.

Peace,
Jeffri

Updated 08/24/07

Some Thoughts On TEC and TAC

A comment on this post on Chuck Blanchard's blog has, in Chuck's words, "started quite a bit of soul searching by the progressive Episcopalian community," and he offers a starting point for discussion in "The Anglican Communion: Next Steps." The most extensive conversation I have read so far has been on Father Jake Stops the World. Make sure to read the comment threads as well as the posts. They make for fascinating reading and provide much material for reflection. As a result of my own reflections, which are ongoing, here are some of my random thoughts about the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. They are in no particular order, and they are not meant to be a cohesive essay or a definitive statement.

From The American Heritage College Dictionary, 4th ed. 2002.:

communion n. 1. The act or an instance of sharing, as of thoughts. 2. Religious or spiritual fellowship. 3. A body of Christians with a common religious faith who practice the same rites; a denomination. 4. Communion a. The sacrament of the Eucharist received by a congregation., b. The consecrated elements of the Eucharist. c. The part of the Mass or a liturgy in which the Eucharist is received.

Definitions 1, 2, and 3 can all be applied to the Anglican Communion. Lately, however, the fellowship has broken down, although the sharing of thoughts continues--more often than not as a war of words (yes, I know, military imagery). And as far as the conservatives/orthodox/reappraisers are concerned, certain parts of the Communion, especially the Episcopal Church, no longer share a common religious faith. One of the things that really bothers me about the ongoing squabbles is how the Eucharist has become a weapon for punishment or defining who is in and who is out.

The conservatives (I will use this term for the time being, as I have larger concerns with the other two terms) continue to protest that dioceses have turned to the civil legal system to reclaim churches/property that congregations deciding to leave the Episcopal Church are attempting to take with them. They feel that a pastoral rather than a legalistic approach should be taken. Yet many of these same people and groups support the drafting and implementation of an Anglican Covenant. Ultimately, a covenant is a contract or compact, a legal document. They decry the legalistic response to their trying to take property that does not belong to them, yet they want to institute a legalistic method of determining who is and who is not an Anglican.

The more I read on conservative blogs and web sites, the more the people who run those sites and blogs--along with the majority of the commentors on the blogs--appear to me to be the contemporary version of the Puritans of Tudor and Stuart England. The Puritans were not happy with the Elizabethan settlement or the church that resulted. Their zeal to reform the church and the world was one of the major factors leading to the English Civil War and the Protectorate. The Puritans were not satisfied unless everyone conformed--at least outwardly--with their beliefs. Neither, it appears, will the conservatives of today.

In my opinion, any covenant adopted by the Anglican Communion would a bad idea. To develop a rigid formula for who is and who is not an Anglican sets a bad precedent. Those who do the casting out today may be those cast out tomorrow. If the Anglican Communion is going to come apart, let it do so now instead of implementing a system that brings about dissolution through a series of bitterly fought tit-for-tat excommunications.

The more extreme conservatives in--and formerly part of--the Episcopal Church continue to work with conservative bishops in other provinces to set up their shadow church. If they cannot conform the Episcopal Church to their way of thinking, then they dream of replacing it in the Anglican Communion with the shadow church. Of course, some of the more extreme liberals wish the conservatives would just leave and go to the shadow church and leave the Episcopal Church alone. I do not think either of those scenarios is workable or preferable.

Many conservatives, especially those building the shadow church, seem to believe that, if the Episcopal Church is disciplined by--or cast out of--the Anglican Communion, most of the "vast middle" will flock to the conservative institution they are building. Quite frankly, for the majority of Episcopalians, the Anglican Communion was barely a blip on their radar screens 20 years ago. If it had not been for the handful of conservatives who went to foreign bishops and "stirred the pot," so to speak, most Episcopalians probably would not be aware of their membership in the Anglican Communion, nor even care. For the average member in the pew, a change in the Episcopal Church's status in the Anglican Communion is probably not going to cause them to leave their current parish. It might push a few here and there to move to the shadow church, but not in much greater numbers than have left over the last 20 years.

The only scenario I can see that might drive the "vast middle" out of the Episcopal Church is if the conservatives succeeded in replacing it in the Anglican Communion with the shadow church. The inevitable legal battles over church property and the resulting rancorous debate would drain parish, diocesan and denominational resources and try the patience of "the vast middle" to the point of enough! Then we would see the "vast middle" flocking not from the Episcopal Church to the shadow church, but to other denominations entirely.

The Convocation of Anglicans in North America (CANA) seems to be the current centerpiece of the shadow church (which at this stage is not yet a single, united entity). According to their own web site CANA is "a duly constituted convocation of the Church of Nigeria." If the conservatives are successful in making the shadow church the Anglican Communion member from the United States, will the Archbishop of Nigeria then be the Primate of Nigeria and the United States?

If the Episcopal Church pauses, as many have suggested, will it pause as a whole, or will the cost of waiting be borne only by its lgbt members?

Just some thoughts on a hot and humid summer evening.

Peace,
Jeffri

The Final Nail In Windsor's Coffin?

This afternoon Archbishop Peter Akinola, Primate of the Church of Nigeria, Anglican Communion, installed the Rt. Rev. Martyn Minns as the Missionary Bishop of the Convocation of Anglicans in North America. Both our Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori and the Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams asked Archbishop Akinola not to come to Virginia and perform the installation. But he did, and by all accounts it was a joyous service.

And the Windsor Report is now in total shreds. If it ever had a hope of being an instrument of reconciliation for the Anglican Communion, that hope went out the window this afternoon. No matter how many accusations of non-compliance have been aimed at the Episcopal Church, bishops from other provinces of the Communion have not ceased crossing provincial lines. The Primates in their Communique from Dar es Salaam basically refused to hold themselves or any other bishops accountable for breaching the same document they have been trying to ram down the Episcopal Church's throat for the last two-and-one-half years.

Here are two of the relevant paragraphs from the Windsor Report:

154. The Anglican Communion upholds the ancient norm of the Church that all the Christians in one place should be united in their prayer, worship and the celebration of the sacraments. The Commission believes that all Anglicans should strive to live out this ideal. Whilst there are instances in the polity of Anglican churches that more than one jurisdiction exists in one place, this is something to be discouraged rather than propagated. We do not therefore favour the establishment of parallel jurisdictions.

155. We call upon those bishops who believe it is their conscientious duty to intervene in provinces, dioceses and parishes other than their own:

• to express regret for the consequences of their actions
• to affirm their desire to remain in the Communion, and
• to effect a moratorium on any further interventions.

We also call upon these archbishops and bishops to seek an accommodation with the bishops of the dioceses whose parishes they have taken into their own care.

Instead of calling themselves to account, they proposed a "Pastoral Scheme" that, in effect, would have set up a parallel jurisdiction within the Episcopal Church. They should not have been surprised when the Bishops of the Epsicopal Church turned it down flat.

And now the Primate of the Church of Nigeria has come to the United States and installed a missionary bishop. As Mr. Rogers might ask, "Can you say hypocrite?"

Peace,
Jeffri