As the last hours of 2007 slip by, I find myself in a reflective mood. This happens often at the turn of the year, as my birthday quickly follows the New Year. I can easily talk myself into a depression thinking about all the "might have beens." Not this year. There are too many positive and hopeful things to think about as I approach my birthday.
One of them is the example of my high school classmate Allan Karl who is travelling around the world on his motorcycle. You can find take a look at his adventures by clicking on the Worldrider link to the right. After not having visited the blog for a couple of weeks, I checked in yesterday and was amazed to find him in Africa. I spent over an hour catching up with his travelogue. I do not particularly want to travel the world on a motorcycle, a bicycle, on foot, or any other way other than plane, train and ship, but if he can do that in his mid-forties, then I can certainly work toward doing some of the things on my "list." Hmmmm...that sounds like a New Year's Resolution.
I rarely make New Year's Resolutions. I have ever only kept one successfully in my life. When I was in eighth grade I resolved to stop biting my fingernails. I spent a lot of time sitting on my hands for the next three months, but I kept that resolution. And this year I must make a resolution and keep it, since my continued good health depends upon it.
So at the moment, I am looking at 2008 and feeling pretty optimistic. Here's to hoping it stays that way.
Peace,
Jeffri
Monday, December 31, 2007
Sunday, December 30, 2007
GAFCON? What Were They Thinking?
Michael Poon, a priest in the Diocese of Singapore has raised some thoughtful questions and concerns about the planning and intentions of GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference). Both of the documents appear on the Global South Anglican site.
The Rev. Poon's first set of questions appeared on December 29th in response to the December 25th announcement of GAFCON and is generally addressed to the Primates involved in the planning of the conference. The questions are direct and appropriate no matter which side of the Anglican Tempest in a Teapot you find yourself. Being a Titanic buff, I could not help but be amused by the following comment on the post:
I was also particularly struck by two thoughts toward the end of the letter. First:
UPDATE
If David Virtue is to be believed, the Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis, President Bishop of the Middle East, was not consulted about the location, or anything else for that matter, of GAFCON. Mr. Virtue quotes correspondence between President Bishop Anis and Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria in this article.
Also posted on VirtueOnline are the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon's response to the initial announcement of GAFCON and his response to Archbishop Jensen's statement (you have to look closely in a paragraph in the middle of the posting to find where Dr. Toon's comments begin). His response to Bishop Jensen is particularly critical of the so-called "orthodox" bishops of the Global South crossing provincial borders:
The Daily Episcopalian section of the Episcopal Cafe posted the Rev. Greg Jones' commentary on the...ummmmm...conversation taking place on some of the conservative blogs in the wake of the GAFCON announcement and the Rev. Poon's questions. In "Conservative Anglicanism Splitting" the Rev. Jones correctly points out:
Among those the Rev. Jones names as "extremist Separatist Powers" is StandFirm. If you want to see what these folks have to say, you can look at this post, this one, and the comments on both. Except for a couple of writers on the StandFirm blog, I have little to no respect for most of the folks who post there. In my opinion they are as mean spirited and as nasty as they often accuse their "worthy opponents" of being. If you decide to read further on their blog, you have been warned.
Peace,
Jeffri
The Rev. Poon's first set of questions appeared on December 29th in response to the December 25th announcement of GAFCON and is generally addressed to the Primates involved in the planning of the conference. The questions are direct and appropriate no matter which side of the Anglican Tempest in a Teapot you find yourself. Being a Titanic buff, I could not help but be amused by the following comment on the post:
Do people think we really need these life boats lowered?* How do we know that the people lowering them actually know what they are doing?* Does the Captain know and approve of the lifeboats being lowered?* Who will be in command of each boat when the boats are actually in the water?* *Questions asked by a concerned passenger immediately after the Titanic struck an iceberg. Said passenger not known to have survived.His second is an open letter addressed directly to Archbishop Jensen in response to his December 27th Statement on the proposed Global Anglican Future Conference, appearing both on the GAFCON web pages and the site run by Anglican Media Sydney (the media and communications arm of the Diocese of Sydney). His first question goes right to the heart of the "crisis" by asking Archbishop Jensen just what the issue is:
What is the particular nature of the crisis before the Communion today? You mentioned several times in your Statement that the issue is over “biblical standards”, especially “in the biblical view of sexual ethics”. I wonder if that depiction adequately reflects the crux of the matter. After all, some other churches and congregations from different traditions have also departed from the "biblical views”. I wonder if the issue before the Anglican Communion is rather this: How do we see ourselves keeping the faith and witnessing together as part of the “one, holy, catholic and apostolic church” across the ages and across the oceans? Perhaps at the heart is an ecclesiological issue. So the contention has never been simply on biblical view of sex, but on the particular issues of episcopal election of a candidate living in a committed same-sex relationship, and on the rites of blessing for same-sex unions. The process of discerning the Word and on keeping faith to what is revealed as a community go hand in hand. I suggest this interpretation may perhaps be fundamental, and determines how we respond and map the way forward.Basically, he is asking "is this about how we do things, or is it about sex?" In other words, are we dealing with the Gay Fear Condition here?
I was also particularly struck by two thoughts toward the end of the letter. First:
The “new” in the Communion is that for the first time we live as a worldwide Communion of autonomous churches, defined by geographical boundaries, and called to work together across the geopolitical and socioeconomic realities. We are no longer a church defined by party lines. We seek not the victory of a party.and second:
It would be a sad day if Anglican churches across the Communion are presented with the choice: between a particular understanding of biblical faithfulness, and allegiance to Canterbury. It is easy to be rebels with causes. It is a different matter, you would agree, to bring about a new world order.The Rev. Poon has offered the entire Anglican Communion much to think about with these questions and comments.
UPDATE
If David Virtue is to be believed, the Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Anis, President Bishop of the Middle East, was not consulted about the location, or anything else for that matter, of GAFCON. Mr. Virtue quotes correspondence between President Bishop Anis and Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria in this article.
Also posted on VirtueOnline are the Rev. Dr. Peter Toon's response to the initial announcement of GAFCON and his response to Archbishop Jensen's statement (you have to look closely in a paragraph in the middle of the posting to find where Dr. Toon's comments begin). His response to Bishop Jensen is particularly critical of the so-called "orthodox" bishops of the Global South crossing provincial borders:
Dr. Toon has summed up very neatly why the self-named "orthodox" bishops have no grounds to hold the Windsor Report as legislative or even authoritative. He also notes the very real possibility of further fractures taking place after separation. Have these particular bishops and their (primarily) North American cohorts overplayed their hand? Perhaps. And even if they have, the damage they have already done to the Anglican Communion will be with us for a very long time.It seems that those Primates and assistants who planned this June 2008 Conference in Israel have lost the virtue of godly patience-after all it is one month from June to July! Tragically also they have exhibited a lack of both godly patience and a sense of unity in the Gospel in their own ranks in the way in which they have entered into the geographical space of the North American Provinces of the global Anglican Communion.
And this action Dr Jensen does not mention. Perhaps he supports it as being fine. Before the crisis brought on by the Robinson affair in 2002, there was working in the U.S.A. that which was known as "the Anglican Mission in America" [AMIA]which was promoted by the Province of Rwanda. In 2004 and the years following, the African Primates in Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda knew well that this Mission was not approved by any of "the instruments of unity" of the Anglican Communion, because it involved the crossing of boundaries by invading missionaries without permission from the home Church/province. Nevertheless, they decided (a) to send their own missionaries (to function wholly separately from the AMIA) and in general to work separately from each other; and (b) to pay no attention to TEC locally or the "Instruments of Unity" globally. There are now effectively several separate Anglican denominations in the U.S.A. & Canada sponsored by Rwanda, Nigeria, Kenya, and Uganda, together with the Southern Cone of South America. By any reckoning this state of affairs-when one puts alongside them the many other Anglican denominations and groups-is a major denial of the doctrine of the Church held within the Anglican Way from its inception. It is nearly a free for all and this despite organizations like Common Cause. And there is a very real question as to whether this situation can ever be put right, for once in existence denominations in the U.S.A, as history shows, tend to solidify and spin off groups to add to the mix. Looking back, one can see how much wiser it would have been for the Primates involved in the invasions to have stayed off shore, offered succor and aid, and counseled patience until the matters could be thrashed out at Lambeth 08. At least, if they wanted to invade from 2004 they could have worked in and through the AMIA to keep the differences and missions in their own ranks to the very minimum.The impending facture [sic] of the global Communion is caused not only by the wicked innovations of the North Americans, and the lack of courage and conviction by the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the lack of patience and precipitate action of some of the Provinces of the Global South!
The Daily Episcopalian section of the Episcopal Cafe posted the Rev. Greg Jones' commentary on the...ummmmm...conversation taking place on some of the conservative blogs in the wake of the GAFCON announcement and the Rev. Poon's questions. In "Conservative Anglicanism Splitting" the Rev. Jones correctly points out:
What I wish more liberal Episcopalians would acknowledge is that many theologically conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians are taking a great deal of heat for standing up for unity, reconciliation and a comprehensive vision of Anglicanism -- and they are not getting much credit for standing against the extremist Separatist powers busily at work attempting to render the Communion. The good news, to my mind, is that there are many Communion minded people who seek comprehensiveness and unity for true -- and they are not all on the same theological page, as regards the inclusion of women, gays or on other questions challenging the wider body at present. They are not of one mind, but they are of one desire to remain in communion by virtue of baptism and a common identity as Anglicans.Among those named as "conservative Anglicans/Episcopalians are taking a great deal of heat" the Rev. Jones names "the Covenant blog collective." You can see what the writers on the Covenant blog have to say in this post, this one, and the comments on both. While I often disagree with the Covenant folks say, I have a great deal of respect for their writing. In particular I have an immense respect for Doug LeBlanc who has long been one of the most objective reporters of things Anglican--when I edited my Integrity chapter's newsletter I often included articles he had written covering various events. I have also been privileged to share a meal with Doug.
Among those the Rev. Jones names as "extremist Separatist Powers" is StandFirm. If you want to see what these folks have to say, you can look at this post, this one, and the comments on both. Except for a couple of writers on the StandFirm blog, I have little to no respect for most of the folks who post there. In my opinion they are as mean spirited and as nasty as they often accuse their "worthy opponents" of being. If you decide to read further on their blog, you have been warned.
Peace,
Jeffri
Saturday, December 29, 2007
GAFCON 3...2...1...
People really need to be more careful about their use of acronyms. Take, for example, the latest initiative coming from a recent meeting in Nairobi of conservative (for lack of a better term) bishops, many of whom are active in the "Global South Anglican" movement: The Global Anglican Future Conference, or GAFCON. GAFCON? The first thing I though of when I saw the acronym was how similar it is to the U.S. military's DEFCON (Defense Readiness Condition). GAFCON? Mark Harris' closing thought in his post on the conference is, "The gaffe in GAFCON is a growth industry."
Then I ltook a look at the conference's web site. Featured on the opening page is a two paragraph excerpt from Sydney (Australia) Archbishop Peter Jensen's article written for sydneyanglicans.net:
There it is in black and white. All of their cries to the contrary, it really is all about power with sex as the presenting issue.
GAFCON? Looks like "Gay Fear Condition" to me, and the fearful "biblical" bishops have just upped their "Fear" status.
Peace,
Jeffri
Then I ltook a look at the conference's web site. Featured on the opening page is a two paragraph excerpt from Sydney (Australia) Archbishop Peter Jensen's article written for sydneyanglicans.net:
A Global Anglican Future Conference is planned for June 2008. The aim of the Conference is to discuss the future of mission and relationships within the churches of Anglican Communion. Those who wish to retain biblical standards especially in the area of sexual ethics have spent much time and effort in negotiations on these issues in the last five years. They want to move on together with the gospel of Christ’s Lordship, a gospel which challenges us and changes lives. Israel is planned as a venue because it symbolises the biblical roots of our faith as Anglicans. I want those in the fellowship of our Diocese to know what this is about and why I am involved.
In 1998, the Lambeth Conference made it clear that the leaders of the overwhelming majority of Anglicans world-wide maintained the biblical view of sexual ethics – that sexual relationships are reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. Five years later, however, actions were taken in Anglican Churches both in Canada and the United States of America which officially transgressed these boundaries in defiance of the Bible’s authority.
There it is in black and white. All of their cries to the contrary, it really is all about power with sex as the presenting issue.
GAFCON? Looks like "Gay Fear Condition" to me, and the fearful "biblical" bishops have just upped their "Fear" status.
Peace,
Jeffri
Friday, December 21, 2007
Christmas Cards As A Look Into The Story
I don't send very many Christmas cards, but I do have a few friends that I like to send cards to. I try to find ones with religious themes. It is very difficult to find cards of the Nativity that do not portray Mary and Jesus as white, complete with blond hair and blue eyes. That goes for Joseph, shepherds, angels, and even the Wise Men. I finally settled on cards that depicted the Nativity in a "blue delft" silhouette. What I should have done was gone to the web site listed on the cards sent out by the Presiding Bishop this year and last year (http://www.bridgebuilding.com/index.htm).
Last year's card, shown to the right, shows three shepherds in distinctly Andean costume. I liked so much that I kept it. It is on the mantelpiece with my Nativities. It blends in nicely with the Peruvian Mother and Child with the two angels. I also like the way the baby Jesus is shown cuddled up with a lamb. I appreciate pictures that show the characters of the Nativity in different ways. One of my friends is an artist, and most years his Christmas cards are a "Joseph and Child." My favorite shows a laughing father and son at play.
This year's card from the Presiding Bishop, shown below, was even more thought provoking. It depicts three women visiting a mother and child. The child, sleeping on his mother's lap, looks to be about two--which fits the story of the wise men and the massacre of the innocents told in Matthew. The folks at StandFirm have taken exception to Katharine's and Richard's choice of the card. Greg Griffith, who posted the item, seems offended not only by the fact that the Magi are depicted as women, but also that the artwork is multicultural.
Greg's reaction to the multicultural aspect is a bit puzzling, since the Magi have traditionally been depicted multiculturally--one of them is usually a black African. More than that, they were the only non-Judeans recorded as visiting Jesus and his family during their time in Bethlehem. Again, many traditional interpretations point to the visit of the Wise Men as recognition of Jesus as the Savior by Gentiles. The message is that Jesus came for ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE. There is nothing wrong with engaging in artistic interpretation to reinforce that message. The more we can visualize ourselves as part of The Story, the more integral it becomes in our lives.
This is particularly important when we remember that most of the world's Christians are, in fact, not Caucasian. When the missionaries went out with the colonizing armies, they took with them the predominant image of Jesus as a white man. This makes sense because European Christians depicted Jesus as a man, and as a child, like themselves--white. In spite of the fact that Jesus was definitely not white, the white Jesus remains the predominant image around the world. If the message is that Jesus became human, became one of us, then depicting him like ourselves, whatever our race or color, is
one way to hold onto and understand more deeply that truth. If, on the other hand, the Bible is to be taken literally, then all depictions of Jesus, and his family, should show them as Semitic people. But even that image is jarring for "traditionalists" raised with pictures of a white Jesus and all white (except for that single Magi "of color") Nativities. So perhaps Greg would have preferred that Katharine and Richard selected something like the card shown at left.
As for depicting the Magi as women, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were in Bethlehem for a long time. They would have had many visitors, not just the handful documented in the Gospels. Who is to say that the three Wise Men in Matthew were the only ones to see the star, mark its importance, and make the journey to Bethlehem?
Quite frankly, the whole Nativity is layered in tradition and folklore, stories of everyday people who find the Christ child and his parents in the manger. Menotti's opera Amahl And The Night Visitors is just one example that comes to mind. Some of those everyday people would have been women. Some of those women would even have been Wise Women. So as we tell the story of Jesus and depict his life in our art, including images of people like us, no matter what race or gender, it only makes the story richer and more relevant to us and our lives. After all, isn't that the reason for season?
Peace,
Jeffri
Last year's card, shown to the right, shows three shepherds in distinctly Andean costume. I liked so much that I kept it. It is on the mantelpiece with my Nativities. It blends in nicely with the Peruvian Mother and Child with the two angels. I also like the way the baby Jesus is shown cuddled up with a lamb. I appreciate pictures that show the characters of the Nativity in different ways. One of my friends is an artist, and most years his Christmas cards are a "Joseph and Child." My favorite shows a laughing father and son at play.This year's card from the Presiding Bishop, shown below, was even more thought provoking. It depicts three women visiting a mother and child. The child, sleeping on his mother's lap, looks to be about two--which fits the story of the wise men and the massacre of the innocents told in Matthew. The folks at StandFirm have taken exception to Katharine's and Richard's choice of the card. Greg Griffith, who posted the item, seems offended not only by the fact that the Magi are depicted as women, but also that the artwork is multicultural.
Greg's reaction to the multicultural aspect is a bit puzzling, since the Magi have traditionally been depicted multiculturally--one of them is usually a black African. More than that, they were the only non-Judeans recorded as visiting Jesus and his family during their time in Bethlehem. Again, many traditional interpretations point to the visit of the Wise Men as recognition of Jesus as the Savior by Gentiles. The message is that Jesus came for ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE. There is nothing wrong with engaging in artistic interpretation to reinforce that message. The more we can visualize ourselves as part of The Story, the more integral it becomes in our lives.This is particularly important when we remember that most of the world's Christians are, in fact, not Caucasian. When the missionaries went out with the colonizing armies, they took with them the predominant image of Jesus as a white man. This makes sense because European Christians depicted Jesus as a man, and as a child, like themselves--white. In spite of the fact that Jesus was definitely not white, the white Jesus remains the predominant image around the world. If the message is that Jesus became human, became one of us, then depicting him like ourselves, whatever our race or color, is
one way to hold onto and understand more deeply that truth. If, on the other hand, the Bible is to be taken literally, then all depictions of Jesus, and his family, should show them as Semitic people. But even that image is jarring for "traditionalists" raised with pictures of a white Jesus and all white (except for that single Magi "of color") Nativities. So perhaps Greg would have preferred that Katharine and Richard selected something like the card shown at left.As for depicting the Magi as women, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus were in Bethlehem for a long time. They would have had many visitors, not just the handful documented in the Gospels. Who is to say that the three Wise Men in Matthew were the only ones to see the star, mark its importance, and make the journey to Bethlehem?
Quite frankly, the whole Nativity is layered in tradition and folklore, stories of everyday people who find the Christ child and his parents in the manger. Menotti's opera Amahl And The Night Visitors is just one example that comes to mind. Some of those everyday people would have been women. Some of those women would even have been Wise Women. So as we tell the story of Jesus and depict his life in our art, including images of people like us, no matter what race or gender, it only makes the story richer and more relevant to us and our lives. After all, isn't that the reason for season?
Peace,
Jeffri
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Why Stay
The Archbishop of Canterbury's Advent Letter to the Primates has generated a lot of discussion on a couple of my email lists (the Anglican-related ones, anyway). Louie Crew is a member of some of the same lists, and I was particularly struck by one of his responses in the ongoing conversation. He has since posted it on his website. He also gave me permission to share it here.
Peace,
Jeffri
Subject: Re: ABC's Advent Letter
From: Louie Crew <lcrew@ANDROMEDA.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:39:59 -0500
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: ABC's Advent Letter
> Let's at least not pay for the damn thing. [Lambeth Conference]
>
> I still think canon law to forbid Bishops gathering with
> extra-provincial bishops would be a good first step. Maybe let one or
> two non-TEC bishops come to them as guests, but that's it.
>
> Maybe GenCon can declare that the Councils of Lambeth have and do
> err, and that the Archbishop of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction in
> this Province of the Episcopal Church.
>
> Lambeth was thought a bad idea at the beginning, and it has proved to be so.
Some mornings I wake up agreeing with you, B*****. It certainly seems unhealthy to pay extensively to keep afloat an organization that batters people, an organization as filled with toxicity as the Anglican Communion appears to be right now.
However, by the time my coffee hits bottom and my prayers ascend, I usually come to the opposite conclusion: It is immature for me to play "I'm gonna pick up my paper dolls and go home" just because things are not going my way.
My commitment to the Communion is sealed by the fact that if The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada do not stay at the table thousands of lgbts (lesbians, gays, bisexual and trangendered) elsewhere in the Communion will not have a voice at all for a very long time, if ever.
I learned long ago that if you leave a body, you forfeit your ability to influence that body. (The Anglican Communion Network will learn that hard lesson very soon.) And for what, the pleasure of hearing the door we slammed shut?
I believe TEC should never voluntarily drop out of the Anglican Communion. If others must expel us, force them to violate the integrity of their own constitution and canons to do so. Don't do their dirty work for them. Does that mean TEC has to fund and support every thing demanded of us? Certainly not. I believe that Executive Council and General Convention need to look much more closely at how the ACC uses the money contributed by the General Convention, but we need to do that as members at the table, not as people who have left. (There are major other contributions from dioceses, from parishes, from individual Episcopalians over which GC and Executive Council have no influence and should not control.)
I feel strongly that no funds from GC should be used to fund primates' meetings. When I was a guest of the Anglican Consultative Council at their offices in London during the week before the last General Convention, I was told that most primates pay their way out of funds provided by their provinces, and some individual primates subsidize the travel of other primates from provinces too poor to pay the full bill. There are no line items for primates' travel in the ACC budget. There is no central accounting system for this network of support outside their budget; nor would I be comfortable giving to the ACC oversight of funds not within its jurisdiction.
Successful collaboration depends on trust. The Anglican Communion now has a crisis of trust. Many don't trust us, and there are many bishops in the Communion -- including the Archbishop of Canterbury -- whom I do not trust. I hope that the conversations that Dr. Dubya plans for Lambeth 2008 will allow candor. I hope that the trained facilitators won't duck either the economic or the spiritual bonds of affection.
Many outside North America see TEC as like the US government -- throwing our weight around, insisting on having our own way or threatening to leave.
Look at the way the US has refused to commit to many international agreements -- regarding the environment, regarding military weapons, regarding torture. Many in the Anglican Communion think that TEC manifested the same mindset in the consecration of +NH and in GC's resolution that those who bless relationships are within the range of Christian response, albeit not a canonically authorized response. "Those Americans are at it again! Throwing their power and their money around!"
But in several major particulars, TEC is not behaving like the USA -- ways which we should emphasize again and again.
1) TEC has not thrown money around to get its own way. GC has continued to pay TEC's assessments. ERD has been on the scene immediately to help with disaster, and long-term in development projects. Dioceses and bishops have continued to support mission financially and with increasingly more face-to-face encounters with disciples around the world.
2) TEC has not insisted that other provinces do as we do. We are insisting instead that they live into the promises they have made repeatedly, that they listen to the experiences of local lgbt Christians.
3) In its affirmations of lgbts, TEC is not standing on the side of the powerful, as the USA does, but on the side of the vulnerable and the weak.
4) TEC is not getting more power by its support of lgbts. It is giving up power. Others have reviled us, invaded us, crippled some of our vital ministries to the poor in their own countries, have said all manner of evil against us falsely because of our stance for Jesus' unbounding love for all.
Jesus wrote the script for what our response should be: Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.
Some lgbts live with the mind-set we had before GC 2003. Many lgbts have not noticed that we are not alone, that a majority of TEC now stands with us -- in most instances not to patronize us, but to be faithful disciples of Jesus in solidarity with us as faithful disciples.
God loves absolutely everybody! I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor Primates, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate tblgs, or anyone else, from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Blessed are those who in spite of all have the courage to be joyous!
They also serve who sit in the corner and lick their wounds.
Peace,
Jeffri
Subject: Re: ABC's Advent Letter
From: Louie Crew <lcrew@ANDROMEDA.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 20:39:59 -0500
-----Original Message-----
Sent: Saturday, December 15, 2007 6:09 PM
Subject: Re: ABC's Advent Letter
> Let's at least not pay for the damn thing. [Lambeth Conference]
>
> I still think canon law to forbid Bishops gathering with
> extra-provincial bishops would be a good first step. Maybe let one or
> two non-TEC bishops come to them as guests, but that's it.
>
> Maybe GenCon can declare that the Councils of Lambeth have and do
> err, and that the Archbishop of Canterbury hath no jurisdiction in
> this Province of the Episcopal Church.
>
> Lambeth was thought a bad idea at the beginning, and it has proved to be so.
Some mornings I wake up agreeing with you, B*****. It certainly seems unhealthy to pay extensively to keep afloat an organization that batters people, an organization as filled with toxicity as the Anglican Communion appears to be right now.
However, by the time my coffee hits bottom and my prayers ascend, I usually come to the opposite conclusion: It is immature for me to play "I'm gonna pick up my paper dolls and go home" just because things are not going my way.
My commitment to the Communion is sealed by the fact that if The Episcopal Church (TEC) and the Anglican Church of Canada do not stay at the table thousands of lgbts (lesbians, gays, bisexual and trangendered) elsewhere in the Communion will not have a voice at all for a very long time, if ever.
I learned long ago that if you leave a body, you forfeit your ability to influence that body. (The Anglican Communion Network will learn that hard lesson very soon.) And for what, the pleasure of hearing the door we slammed shut?
I believe TEC should never voluntarily drop out of the Anglican Communion. If others must expel us, force them to violate the integrity of their own constitution and canons to do so. Don't do their dirty work for them. Does that mean TEC has to fund and support every thing demanded of us? Certainly not. I believe that Executive Council and General Convention need to look much more closely at how the ACC uses the money contributed by the General Convention, but we need to do that as members at the table, not as people who have left. (There are major other contributions from dioceses, from parishes, from individual Episcopalians over which GC and Executive Council have no influence and should not control.)
I feel strongly that no funds from GC should be used to fund primates' meetings. When I was a guest of the Anglican Consultative Council at their offices in London during the week before the last General Convention, I was told that most primates pay their way out of funds provided by their provinces, and some individual primates subsidize the travel of other primates from provinces too poor to pay the full bill. There are no line items for primates' travel in the ACC budget. There is no central accounting system for this network of support outside their budget; nor would I be comfortable giving to the ACC oversight of funds not within its jurisdiction.
Successful collaboration depends on trust. The Anglican Communion now has a crisis of trust. Many don't trust us, and there are many bishops in the Communion -- including the Archbishop of Canterbury -- whom I do not trust. I hope that the conversations that Dr. Dubya plans for Lambeth 2008 will allow candor. I hope that the trained facilitators won't duck either the economic or the spiritual bonds of affection.
Many outside North America see TEC as like the US government -- throwing our weight around, insisting on having our own way or threatening to leave.
Look at the way the US has refused to commit to many international agreements -- regarding the environment, regarding military weapons, regarding torture. Many in the Anglican Communion think that TEC manifested the same mindset in the consecration of +NH and in GC's resolution that those who bless relationships are within the range of Christian response, albeit not a canonically authorized response. "Those Americans are at it again! Throwing their power and their money around!"
But in several major particulars, TEC is not behaving like the USA -- ways which we should emphasize again and again.
1) TEC has not thrown money around to get its own way. GC has continued to pay TEC's assessments. ERD has been on the scene immediately to help with disaster, and long-term in development projects. Dioceses and bishops have continued to support mission financially and with increasingly more face-to-face encounters with disciples around the world.
2) TEC has not insisted that other provinces do as we do. We are insisting instead that they live into the promises they have made repeatedly, that they listen to the experiences of local lgbt Christians.
3) In its affirmations of lgbts, TEC is not standing on the side of the powerful, as the USA does, but on the side of the vulnerable and the weak.
4) TEC is not getting more power by its support of lgbts. It is giving up power. Others have reviled us, invaded us, crippled some of our vital ministries to the poor in their own countries, have said all manner of evil against us falsely because of our stance for Jesus' unbounding love for all.
Jesus wrote the script for what our response should be: Rejoice, and be exceedingly glad, for so persecuted they the prophets who were before you.
Some lgbts live with the mind-set we had before GC 2003. Many lgbts have not noticed that we are not alone, that a majority of TEC now stands with us -- in most instances not to patronize us, but to be faithful disciples of Jesus in solidarity with us as faithful disciples.
God loves absolutely everybody! I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor Primates, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate tblgs, or anyone else, from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Blessed are those who in spite of all have the courage to be joyous!
They also serve who sit in the corner and lick their wounds.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Partition
For a few weeks during my year of graduate work at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, I dated an Israeli medical student. One afternoon we went to see the movie Gandhi followed by dinner at his apartment. While we prepared our meal, we talked about the movie. The scenes of the refugee columns and the Hindu/Muslim violence affected him deeply. He asked over and over again how people could do that to each other. How could they force their neighbors from their homes? How could they kill each other in the name of God? I stared at him incredulously. "Joni, I have one word for you," I said. "Palestine." That was the beginning of the end of our relationship.
Memories of that evening came back to me this afternoon as I watched a couple of episodes of Mountbatten: The Last Viceroy. Like Gandhi, it has scenes of refugees and Muslim/Hindu violence. However, the Masterpiece Theatre production focuses on Mountbatten's years in India as Britain granted independence to India and Pakistan rather than being a biography of his entire life. As such, the miniseries looks at the personalities and forces that ultimately resulted in the partition of India into two separate nations. Watching the events play out on my computer screen I found myself thinking about the current situation in the Anglican Communion. Who is playing what role in our little drama? Is Rowan Williams Gandhi, doing everything he can think of to avoid partition at all costs? Or is he Mountbatten, coming to the realization that partition is inevitable? Perhaps Peter Akinola is Mountbatten, forcing everyone to face a harsh reality. Would that leave Katharine Jefferts Schori in the role of Gandhi? And who is Jinnah, insisting that there is no solution but to have a separate Pakistan? Robert Duncan? Matyn Minns? Gregory Venables?
No matter who plays who, it is clear that, similar to the situation in India, ideologies have hardened and partition is on the brink of becoming an unpleasant and unavoidable permanent reality. Brad Drell writes, "At GC2009, there will be blood on the floor over the leaving of whole Dioceses of the church." If all sides in this tempest in the Anglican teapot cannot find a way to live and work together in spite of their disagreements, the metaphorical blood will not be on the floor of the next General Convention, it will be shed long before that. As those who wish to disaffiliate themselves from the Episcopal Church take larger and larger steps to seek refuge with more conservative jurisdictions, the flow of refugees in the other direction will begin. At first it will probably be confined to liberal congregations looking to leave conservative dioceses such as San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and Fort Worth as they attempt to leave the Episcopal Church. That will be bloody enough. If, however, this trend transforms itself into an actual partition of the Anglican Communion into two or more separate entities (remember that Pakistan eventually split, with East Pakistan becoming Bangladesh), then the streams of refugees will no longer be confined to the Episcopal Church. They will spread across the Anglican Provinces around the world.
If partition is inevitable, and we are, in fact, creating two or more new Anglican entities out of the Communion, how do we avoid a violent and bloody one? What are those of us on all sides willing to give up in order to make the transition as peaceful and smooth as possible? Or are we all like Joni, unable to see the atrocities in our own provinces while weeping and gnashing our teeth at what goes on in others? And if compromise is not possible, what then? Do we truly understand the realities of partition? Are any of us really prepared to triage the survivors?
I don't know. The answer is I just don't know.
Peace,
Jeffri
Memories of that evening came back to me this afternoon as I watched a couple of episodes of Mountbatten: The Last Viceroy. Like Gandhi, it has scenes of refugees and Muslim/Hindu violence. However, the Masterpiece Theatre production focuses on Mountbatten's years in India as Britain granted independence to India and Pakistan rather than being a biography of his entire life. As such, the miniseries looks at the personalities and forces that ultimately resulted in the partition of India into two separate nations. Watching the events play out on my computer screen I found myself thinking about the current situation in the Anglican Communion. Who is playing what role in our little drama? Is Rowan Williams Gandhi, doing everything he can think of to avoid partition at all costs? Or is he Mountbatten, coming to the realization that partition is inevitable? Perhaps Peter Akinola is Mountbatten, forcing everyone to face a harsh reality. Would that leave Katharine Jefferts Schori in the role of Gandhi? And who is Jinnah, insisting that there is no solution but to have a separate Pakistan? Robert Duncan? Matyn Minns? Gregory Venables?
No matter who plays who, it is clear that, similar to the situation in India, ideologies have hardened and partition is on the brink of becoming an unpleasant and unavoidable permanent reality. Brad Drell writes, "At GC2009, there will be blood on the floor over the leaving of whole Dioceses of the church." If all sides in this tempest in the Anglican teapot cannot find a way to live and work together in spite of their disagreements, the metaphorical blood will not be on the floor of the next General Convention, it will be shed long before that. As those who wish to disaffiliate themselves from the Episcopal Church take larger and larger steps to seek refuge with more conservative jurisdictions, the flow of refugees in the other direction will begin. At first it will probably be confined to liberal congregations looking to leave conservative dioceses such as San Joaquin, Pittsburgh and Fort Worth as they attempt to leave the Episcopal Church. That will be bloody enough. If, however, this trend transforms itself into an actual partition of the Anglican Communion into two or more separate entities (remember that Pakistan eventually split, with East Pakistan becoming Bangladesh), then the streams of refugees will no longer be confined to the Episcopal Church. They will spread across the Anglican Provinces around the world.
If partition is inevitable, and we are, in fact, creating two or more new Anglican entities out of the Communion, how do we avoid a violent and bloody one? What are those of us on all sides willing to give up in order to make the transition as peaceful and smooth as possible? Or are we all like Joni, unable to see the atrocities in our own provinces while weeping and gnashing our teeth at what goes on in others? And if compromise is not possible, what then? Do we truly understand the realities of partition? Are any of us really prepared to triage the survivors?
I don't know. The answer is I just don't know.
Peace,
Jeffri
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)