Bishop John Bryson Chane and some 250 other religious leaders have signed this letter imploring Ken Nnamani, president of the Nigerian Senate to reject a bill before the Senate that would "strip a section of the Nigerian people of their basic human rights."
Bishop Chane and the Rev. Susan Russell are also quoted in this press release from Human Rights Watch.
Hat tip to Matt, whose full post is here.
... in whose former church I used to listen to summer concerts during the Skaneatles Festival, is not of a mind to give Archbishops Williams and Akinola what they want.
Bishop Skip Adams writes:
"It is important to me that we remain a part of the Anglican Communion. I also realize that in difficult conversations and in seeking compromise, not everyone gets all that they want. But let me be clear. As bishop of this Diocese I will not sacrifice GLBT people for the sake of an unjust unity. Indeed, I cannot morally sacrifice anyone else, only myself. To use an image from the civil rights movement, I will not ask gay and lesbian people to go the back of the bus for a time. The gifts of God’s GLBT people will continue to be welcome in this Diocese in all areas of ministry. They are we, and we are who we are because of the gifts of all of God’s people in this Diocese."
And he becomes, I think, the first bishop to name the price he thinks we should be willing to pay:
"Is it possible that parts of the Church will have to walk apart for a time? As much as that would grieve me I believe that is a possible outcome. What I also believe is that a Church focused on judgment and the seeking of so-called correct dogmatic formulas is a Church that will not have much to say to the broken and hurting world in which we live. It will keep us from being a faithful Church of the 21st Century. If we must walk apart for a time in our official capacities, we will not be isolationists. Global mission will continue to be a part of the Episcopal Church and this Diocese. Our diocesan relationships with Anglicans in El Salvador, the Sudan and Liberia will continue. I have had conversations with bishops in those places and know this to be true."
Read it all beneath the "continue reading" tab.
A transcript of Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's opening remarks from her Webcast this morning can be found here.
The Retuers story is here. I think it confirms the fact that she did not commit news. My hunch is that she accomplished what she wanted, a thoughtful exposition of her viewpoint, that didn't provide any startling revelations that would change the nature of the conversation before the Church had a chance to reflect on what the Primates are asking us to do.
The ENS stories are here and here.
Rachel Zoll's piece for AP is by far the most evocative of the bunch, and best captures the mood of the question and answer period.
Susan Russell and Lionel Deimel have both used my exchange with Kendall Harmon as a jumping off point for reflections of their own. While you are bloghopping, visit Bill Carroll's new digs. And don't miss Katie Sherrod's latest.
The Living Church is billing this story as a behind the scenes account of the Primates Meeting. It seems rather generalized and is anonymously sourced. So, while I am glad to see it, I don't think it is as signficant as some of their behind the scenes reporting from Dromantine. I also think the analysis of which arguments did or didn't sway people should be regarded with skepticism. Group mindreading based on a small sample is tricky business.
I have received a very thoughtful piece from The Rev. Joseph F. Duggan of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles, a doctoral candidate at the University of Manchester in England. Find it beneath the "continue reading" tab.
He writes: TEC must lead Anglicans in a radical attitude adjustment. Ideological differences must be given the same privileged status of inclusion as race, class, gender, and sexual orientation. Rather than continuing to take sides TEC must stand up for all differences, even the ones that repulse. Historically astute Anglicans know that communion must be achieved amidst the constant strife of difference and interdependence. Difference is constitutive of the Anglican Communion, not a disturbance that must be disciplined. TEC must exemplify this interdependence and coexistence of difference.
He writes:
++Rowan's little organic unity, is already persecuting homosexual persons in Nigeria via the Nigerian Church.
It had a chance to register an objection loud and clear when it might have effected something significant or at least acted to delare solidarity with those bearing the image of Christ among Nigerian homosexuals, and it chose not to do so.
Read it all. (The link works again.)
Jack Miles, author of God: A Biography writes:
Numerically, the 2.3 million Episcopalians do not loom large among 77 million Anglicans worldwide. Symbolically, however, given the global importance of the United States, the departure of the Americans will leave the archbishop exposed as a quasi-colonial, quasi-papal figurehead heading a church made up, anachronistically, of Britain and her mostly African and Asian former colonies. This will be an awkward state of affairs, and portends further fissures.
There is also a quintessentially 21st-century implication to this now quite-likely split. A solid majority of American Episcopalians supports their church's stance on homosexuality and gay marriage. A minority disagrees, and some of these members have even sought to pull their congregations out of the Episcopal Church and affiliate them with one of the Anglican churches in Africa that have been most vehemently opposed to the Episcopalians' decisions on homosexuality.
Along the same lines, any British or Canadian or Australian congregation that wished to disaffiliate from local forms of Anglicanism might well affiliate with the Episcopal Church. In fact, a few have already signaled their readiness.
Read it all.
Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's impressive Webcast has clarified one thing to me. She believes that we and our partners in the Anglican Communion are involved in a conversation, in which, over time, our Church will have an opportunity to advance the ideal of full inclusion for all of the baptized, whereas I believe that we are involved in a power struggle, which, over time, will exhaust our energies, compromise our credibility, sow unprecedented levels of internal discord, and make it impossible for us to practice full inclusion even within our own Church.
I would like to be wrong about this because, frankly, it would make my life easier to disengage from the debate over how we should respond to the Primates. So I welcome arguments from those who believe that I am being overly pessimistic.
The PB is an excellent communicator. She presents her case well. But there is something that I think that she and some of our other bishops may not understand. It is not helpful when people who have power tell people who do not have power to dial down their anxieties, move beyond their fears, etc. Expressing our anxieties is often the only way we have of communicating with leaders who otherwise might not hear us, and might be willing to sacrifice our continued membership in the Church in order to achieve their own aims.
You may recall that earlier this week I suggested that the surest way for the Anglican Communion to resolve its internal difference about the morality of various sorts of sexual relationships would be for Anglicans to abstain from sex until a resolution was reached.
I am delighted to report that Hugh Muir, who is writing the Diary column in the Guardian this week has embraced my proposal. Given his support, I expect the Lysistrata plan to be brought to the floor in the Church of England's General Synod more or less immediately.
Muir wrote: Finally let us pray with Jim Naughton, the canon for communications at the Diocese of Washington DC, who unveils an exciting new approach to problem solving. He says the row over homosexuality in the church would be quickly resolved if all Anglicans were forced to abstain from sex in the meantime. Perhaps this incentive-led approach should be used to improve conditions on the railways. The transport minister's wife might be lonely for a while. But eventually we would all be safer.
Watch the Presiding Bishop's Webcast today at 10 a. m., EST. If you are checking in here before the event, tell me what you hope she will say. If you are checking in afterwards, I would be interested in your reaction.
Canon Kendall Harmon has done me the honor of naming a loophole after me, and then done me the additional honor of suggesting that he thinks I am still capable of listening to what people I disagree with have to say. I think he deserves a serious response.
In a lengthy article on his blog, Kendall wrote:
“I want further to make a plea specifically to Jim Naughton, since I feel I can talk to Jim and try to be heard (alas an increasing rarity in the deteriorating climate in the Episcopal Church at present).
“First, I want to ask whether you realize how ethnocentric your reading of the communiqué is. It sounds like it comes from the country where apostolic leaders act like lawyers. Are we not called as Anglicans to ask what others would think? Do you really believe that your reading of the Communiqué is the way an African or Southeast Asian Primate would intend it? Is there even a way to write the communiqué as Greg Venables thinks it should be read and that you would read as Archbishop Venables intends that would make sense in the language of most of the other parts of the world?
“Second, I want to plead with you to consider that the Anglican Communion is not something to be trifled with as if it were some kind of a game, as if it all came down to what the meaning of the word is is. Should not the thing to do in this instance be to bend over backwards to give the most globally Anglican interpretation of the document? It is not a small thing that the third largest Christian family in the world may break up. I pray it does not. And I especially pray if it does break up it will not be because we tried to find loopholes but instead that we tried as hard as we could to be honest with one another and heard what others were saying to us in their terms–KSH”.
Kendall’s article is full of citations buttressing an argument that proves to his satisfaction that the communiqué from the Primates recommends that the Episcopal Church stop the practice of blessing same sex relationships—period. I have suggested, in various interviews and in several entries that I am too lazy to link to, that I think the communiqué requests a moratorium on the authorization of rites, but not on the practice of blessings, the great majority of which occur without benefit of a rite.
Kendall, as a theologian, argues his point through a close reading of densely-worded texts. This is a useful approach in Scripture scholarship, and in the law—cases in which the authors of the document you are attempting to interpret are dead, or express themselves exclusively through judicial opinion. In this instance, the authors are alive, and relatively close at hand. That is why we already know that Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s interpretation of the document differs from that of Presiding Bishop Gregory Venables of the Southern Cone. And for a truly unusual interpretation, try on Peter Akinola’s notion that the communiqué asks the Episcopal Church to stop ordaining gay clergy.
I don’t know why the publication of each Anglican document sets off an interpretive free for all. It happened after Windsor. It happened after Dromantine. It happened after the release of the sub-group’s report on the Episcopal Church’s response to the Windsor Report, and it is happening again here. My own sense, from talking to some of the people involved in these various collaborative efforts is that ambiguous language is employed deliberately by those who perfect that final versions of these documents so that a “unanimous statement” can be released that keeps the Communion together long enough to argue another day.
I don’t doubt that some African and South East Asian Primates interpret the document differently than I do, or than Bishop Jefferts Schori does, but I don’t think that has anything to do with culture. (And I am not going to bother to defend myself against Kendall’s charge of ethnocentrism. There may be a less edifying spectacle that two comfortable middle-aged white guys arguing about which of them truly understands the spirit of the developing world, but nothing comes to mind at the moment.) It has to do with human beings’ natural tendency to interpret whatever is put before them in ways favorable to their own interests.
Fortunately, there is a way of clearing all of this up that doesn’t require consulting dead authors, or piling excerpts atop of one another and defending one’s interpretation of each dash and comma. We can ask the Archbishop of Canterbury how he interprets the document. He has actually weighed in on this issue, but in a way that I found confusing. Kendall quotes a fragment of the sentence that he spoke on this topic, but here is the whole thing:
“We have asked for more clarity as to whether a moratorium has indeed been agreed on the election of bishops in active sexual partnerships outside marriage; and we have suggested a similar voluntary moratorium by the bishops on licensing any kind of liturgical order for same-sex blessings (the understanding of the Meeting was certainly that this should be a comprehensive abstention from any public rites), at least for the period during which the wider discussion of the Covenant goes forward."
To my mind, the language about "licensing any kind of liturgical order" clearly supports the interpretation I have been advancing. But, I have to concede that the language in parenthesis "comprehensive abstention from any public rites" brings us back, at least, to the ambiguity of square one. The blessing of same sex unions in this country almost never involves a licensed rite. But the ceremonies are hardly private.
We can attempt to divine Williams’ intention by citing eight other instances in which he used the comprehensive, and tracing the history of the use of the word “public” since Lancelot Andrewes, but a simple statement of his position would be much more persuasive. At least two reporters that I am aware of have asked for clarification, but Lambeth Palace has yet to respond.
I am perfectly willing to accept whatever interpretation the Archbishop puts forth. I don’t have a burning desire to be right about this. I have a burning desire to be clear. Obviously, if Williams expects us to ban blessings (and then police the ban), Bishop Jefferts Schori will have a much harder time persuading our Church to accept the Primates’ recommendations than if Williams simply expects us to maintain what is essentially the status quo.
Before we begin the difficult conversation on this issue, it is essential that we know what is being asked of us.
In closing I’d like to respond to Kendall’s plea not to trifle with the Communion. That’s not what I’m doing. It is unfortunate that the Communion communicates with its members in language that requires the kind of scrutiny that Kendall and I have been engaged in. But it does. So we have no choice.
If the Primates’ recommendation leaves room for the continuation of same-sex blessings, then I can only assume that room exists for a reason. The reason, I suggest, is that the Archbishop of Canterbury and a few others may have realized that giving us this bit of room significantly increased the odds of keeping the Episcopal Church within the Communion. So, if that room exists, it exists for the sake of the Communion. And if it doesn’t exist, it is essential that Episcopalians understand that as they contemplate their decision.
I think that about covers it. For those of you who feel moved to comment on this article, I request that you not call Kendall arrogant, insincere or dishonest, that you not refer to him as a “weasel” nor accuse him of bad faith. And I hope it goes without saying that anyone who would suggest that Canon Harmon is “under the influence of the Father of lies, their minds darkened by their perversion of HIS Word,” will not be commenting on this blog anytime soon.
...by the Primates of the Anglican Communion:
He writes:
As a Bishop of this Church, I cannot turn my back on full inclusion for all persons, which has been at the heart of ministry in this Diocese since Bishop Hare came to Dakota Territory to minister to the Native People of this land, and continues to this day as we open our doors to all who would like to worship in this Church in South Dakota. We simply cannot now turn our collective backs on those who wish to worship with us and I call on all congregations to continue to be a "safe place" for all to gather in our Lord's name.
I have never had a loophole named after me before. And to share the honor with Bishop Sisk makes the honor that much sweeter. I'd like to thank Kendall Harmon, our director Martin Scorcese--you're the best man, Sherry Lansing, who believed in this project when no one else did... (tugs on right earlobe, exits left.)
Watch Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's Webcast here tomorrow at 10 a. m., EST.
I am among those who no longer think it is helpful to Bishop Robinson to be the "face" of the struggle for the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the Episcopal Church. The world needs to see other leaders in our Church stepping forward and speaking out. The more the struggle is "about" Gene as an indiviudal, the less it is about justice. And the more it is about Gene, the easier it is for his opponents to undermine a movement by undermining one man. I think no one understands this better than Bishop Robinson himself.
All that said, the piece lurking beneath the "continue reading" tab is pretty darn good. If you are hurting over recent developments in our Church, if you are worried that our episcopal leaders are going to buy unity--and tickets to Lambeth, at the price of our consciences, this is a piece you need to read.
I don't know if he was silent by design, or simply because he was on vacation, but I think Bishop Gene Robinson was wise to allow some of his peers to respond to the recommendations from the Anglican Primates Meeting before weighing in himself. But he's now got a statement out, and you can find it by clicking on the "continue reading" tab.
A letter from Integrity:
You may have heard that the Nigerian Senate is considering a bill (the Same-Sex Marriage Prohibition Act) that would criminalize all activities related to homosexuality--from private consensual behavior to speech, assembly, and commitment ceremonies. It appears that the bill will be brought up for a final vote in the Senate on Thursday, March 1st. The bill has already passed the Nigerian House.
Davis Mac-Iyalla of Changing Attitude Nigeria is asking for our help. Here are two concrete things you can do...
1) Send an e-mail to Archbishop Peter Akinola (primate@anglican-nig.org ) asking him to use his considerable influence with the Senate to defeat the bill. Remind him that paragraph 146 of the Windsor Report states that, ''any demonising of homosexual persons, or their ill treatment, is totally against Christian charity and basic principles of pastoral care."
2) Call the Nigerian Embassy (202-986-8400 ) in Washington, DC, to express your concerns about the bill. Remind embassy staff that Nigeria is a signatory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), which guarantees freedom from unfair discrimination and the right to privacy. Parts of the act are also inconsistent with the principle of non-discrimination found in the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights and the Nigerian Constitution.
Integrity is working with Human Rights Watch and the Human Rights Campaign on other ways to defeat the bill.
See http://www.iglhrc.org/files/iglhrc/reports/Voices_Nigeria.pdf for copy of the bill, as well as stories from Nigerians who have experienced discrimination as a result of their sexual orientation.
To read the Very Rev. Ward B. Ewing's letter to the students and faculty of the General Theological Seminary in New York City, click on the continue reading tab.
Matt Thompson continues to track the debate to legalize human rights violations against gays and lesbians and their supporters in Nigeria.
The most recent information I have comes from a professional acquaintance who is working against it:
"As you may have heard, the situation has become critical. With just 2 days notice, the Nigerian House unexpectedly held hearings on the bill on Valentine’s Day that has draconian measures against lesbian and gay people . After the hearings, the House acted quickly on the legislation, and now is poised for a final vote. In the Nigerian Senate, where we thought we had at least until the end of March, we learned last night that the Senate will likely vote on the bill this Thursday. After that, the two versions of the bill have to be harmonized and the bill has to be signed into law, but neither of those steps is expected to present any obstacles to the bill. The Christian right is fast-tracking the legislation prior to the mid-April elections. We are all depressed to realize that the bill is likely about to become law.
"Nonetheless, we and our friends in Nigeria are pulling out all stops."
In addition to being the subject of NPR's Talk of the Nation today at 2 p. m. EST, the Anglican Communion's wrangling over homosexuality will also be the subject of the BBC's World Have Your Say program at 1 p. m. EST. That program will focus on a question raised by Rowan Williams' presidential address to the General Synod of the Church of England yesterday: Is the Communion obsessed with sex?
Elsewhere: Richard at Caught by the Light is among those distressed by Rowan Williams bizarre attempt to elevate Lambeth Resolutions to holy writ.
Inspired by the Mad Priest, Nick Knisely asks: Are we in danger of chasing so fast after the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic models of relating to one another that we're forgetting that we've something to add too? I don't know - but I want to think a bit more about the question.
And EpiScope has a story about a Florida pastor who was apparently living in a glass house when he threw stones at the Episcopal Church.
The Episcopal Church is the topic de jour today on Talk of the Nation, 2 p. m. EST on your NPR affiliate.
Here is Tobias Haller's first draft of a proposed response to the recommendations made to our Church by the Primates of the Anglican Communion. Anything Tobais writes is worth a read including grocery lists, so I urge you to spend some time with it. There is recognition here that our Church has been on the defensive since at least 2003, and that we must reverse that dynamic if we are to survive. I find that encouraging. What are your thoughts?
Liz Zizanov of the Diocese of Hawaii posted this appeal from Davis Mac-Iyalla on the House of Bishops and Deputies list tonight. Pray for Davis, and write to Lambeth. Is it possible that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the people around him don't understand that his failure to confront Peter Akinola over this bill and the Church of Nigeria's treatment of Davis has undermined his ability to speak out on any other human rights issue?
Dear Friends,
I don't know if members of this group can do much to help us in Nigeria?
This morning I got a call from an unknown caller who wanted to find out where I am at the time. I ask him to introduced himself since I don't know him and he said so you are back from your trip and off the phone on me. I called the number back and a woman picked and said it is a public call phone. My surprise is how he did get my number which is very private.
I have been talking with friends and supporters of how to go to a safe place for some time at list. The bill to ban us in moving fast to become law. The worst of all is that +Akinola is the master and brain be hide this bill, recently he has been lobbying the presidency to put pressure on the senate and house of representatives to speed up the process in passing the bill.
This evening I have receive news from Abuja that the bill is likely to be passed be fore the end of March. And members of Akinola staffs boosting that CAN will soon be illegal and me will be sent to prison. Most of my members are now calling and sending me mails to askwhat will become of them if this bill is passed?
This is one question that I don't have the answers to right now, my appeal to everyone is to help use any medium that you can to drew the attention of the world and church leaders to this Nigerian problem.
If tears can changed things I think by now I would have changed the situation of the Nigerian LGBT Christians.
If you can dear brothers and sisters please give a last minute call to your bishops or anyone you know that can add there voices to put pressures on the Nigerian government and +Akinola who is the current president of the Nigeria Chastain Association that is requiting that the bill be passed soon.
Please spread this massage if you can.
Thanks
Davis Mac-Iyalla
Nigeria
The Anglican Scotist appraises Rowan William's presidential address to the General Synod.
He wrote: "... Williams' manner betrays an unaccountable, self-serving, and indeed incoherent exercise of power that should give some contemplating their place in the AC under a covenant pause. Is +++Williams really so naive as not to see this, or might he suppose it his privilege?"
ENS has the story:
Lawyers for the Episcopal Church have told two attorneys representing some of the 11 Diocese of Virginia congregations involved in a legal dispute over possession of church property that "there is no basis at this time" to put that litigation on hold.
Washington, D.C. attorneys Mary A. McReynolds and Steffen N. Johnson asked by letter on February 22 that the litigation be put on hold after the communiqué issued at the end of the recent Primates' Meeting "urge[d] the representatives of The Episcopal Church and of those congregations in property disputes with it to suspend all actions in law arising in this situation."
The Primates' recommendation concerning litigation was one of a number of interrelated recommendations which they made concerning the way the Episcopal Church should deal with disagreements among its members.
In their February 26 reply, David Booth Beers, chancellor to Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and his colleague Heather H. Anderson, first reminded the two attorneys that the Anglican Communion is a federation and not a "juridical or legislative body."
Thus, they wrote, it "has no legal authority over the affairs of its members."
Now there's a slogan. Christopher of Bending the Rule says that's where our Communion is heading. He foresees a conciliar papism with an evangelical fundamentalist theology.
Ann is at it again.
Here is Bishop Mark Beckwith of Newark:
"... I agree with those who say that proving full rights and privileges in the church for gay and lesbian people is a matter of justice. But for me, it goes deeper than that: “I think it is important to speak of the giftedness of the entire human family” (which is what I wrote in response to one of the questions in the nominating process). I believe that homosexuality is a unique gift – among a host of other unique gifts – be it ability, ethnicity, race, or class. I pray that the diversity of sexual orientation should not be a problem for the church, but a gift to the church. Gay and lesbian people – clergy and lay, have certainly been a gift to the Diocese of Newark. And I believe that relationships marked by fidelity, faith, and commitment need to be held up and celebrated."
Here's a statement from a delegation of Christian leaders who have just returned from a visit to Iran. Among their number was Maureen Shea, director of the Episcopal Church's Office of Government Relations.
As Christian leaders from the United States, we traveled to the Islamic Republic of Iran at this time of increased tension believing that it is possible to build bridges of understanding between our two countries. We believe military action is not the answer, and that God calls us to just and peaceful relationships within the global community.
We are a diverse group of Christian leaders from United Methodist, Episcopal, Catholic, Baptist, Evangelical, Quaker, and Mennonite traditions. The Mennonites have 17 years of on the ground experience in Iran. We were warmly welcomed by the Iranian people, and our time in Iran convinced us that religious leaders from both countries can help pave the way for mutual respect and peaceful relations between our nations.
During our visit we met with Muslim and Christian leaders, government officials, and other Iranian people.
Our final day included a meeting with former President Khatami and current President Ahmadinejad. The meeting with President Ahmadinejad was the first time an American delegation had met in Iran with an Iranian president since the Islamic revolution in 1979. The meeting lasted two-and-a-half hours and covered a range of topics, including the role of religion in transforming conflict, Iraq, nuclear proliferation, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
What the delegation found most encouraging from the meeting with President Ahmadinejad was a clear declaration from him that Iran has no intention to acquire or use nuclear weapons, as well as a statement that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can only be solved through political, not military means. He said, "I have no reservation about conducting talks with American officials if we see some goodwill."
We believe it is possible for further dialogue and that there can be a new day in U.S. — Iranian relations. The Iranian government has already built a bridge toward the American people by inviting our delegation to come to Iran. We ask the U.S. government to welcome a similar delegation of Iranian religious leaders to the United States.
As additional steps in building bridges between our nations, we call upon both the U.S. and Iranian governments to:
immediately engage in direct, face-to-face talks;
cease using language that defines the other using "enemy" images; and
promote more people-to-people exchanges including religious leaders, members of Parliament/Congress, and civil society.
As people of faith, we are committed to working toward these and other confidence building measures, which we hope will move our two nations from the precipice of war to a more just and peaceful relationship.
Find it here.
Read it here.
Hat tip to Ann Fontaine.
Thanks to everyone who sent me thins link while I was in a meeting. Here is the Archbishop of Canterbury's presidential address to the General Synod of the Church of England.
I will let the rest of you have at this. I just want to note that Williams comments directly on the same-sex blessing business, and yet somehow fails to clear it up. Have a look:
"We have asked for more clarity as to whether a moratorium has indeed been agreed on the election of bishops in active sexual partnerships outside marriage; and we have suggested a similar voluntary moratorium by the bishops on licensing any kind of liturgical order for same-sex blessings (the understanding of the Meeting was certainly that this should be a comprehensive abstention from any public rites), at least for the period during which the wider discussion of the Covenant goes forward."
The language used in the first case "licensing any kind of liturgical order" clearly supports the interpretation I have been advancing. The language in parenthesis "comprehensive abstention from any public rites" brings us back to the ambiguity of square one. The blessing of same sex unions in this country almost never involves a licensed rite. But the ceremonies are hardly private. Why is it so hard to achieve some clarity on this point?
One more thing. I found this passage quite clarifying:
"Much has been made of the relative nobility of a ‘Here I stand’ position as compared with the painful brokering and compromising needed for unity’s sake. It’s impossible not to feel the force of this. Yet – to speak personally for a moment – the persistence of the Communion as an organically international and intercultural unity whose aim is to glorify Jesus Christ and to work for his Kingdom is for me and others just as much a matter of deep personal and theological conviction as any other principle. About this, I am entirely prepared to say ‘Here I stand and I cannot do otherwise’. And I believe the Primates have said the same.'"
I think he is wrong about the Primates. The story of this meeting was that of a small group willing to split the Communion if Williams did not capitulate to them. He did. They have not made the statement he attributes to them. They have simply gotten their way.
That said, I think Williams commitment to hold the Communion together at all costs is now as clear as can be. He is doing this at the expense of many now in the Communion, but that is a price he is willing to have them pay.
There's been a lot of talk about "fasting" since the release of the Primates communique. To use the Presiding Bishop's metaphor, we've been called to "fast" from pushing our commitment to the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life and ministries of our Church.
Some, like Susan Russell, have suggested that if we are going to fast from blessing gay relationships, and consecrating gay bishops, we should also fast from blessing heterosexual relationships and consecrating heterosexual bishops as well. Such a strategy spreads the burdens of abstinence equally, and avoids turning gay Christians into our "designated fasters."
I think I've got a better idea. Our arguments about homosexuality have revealed deep disagreements about the nature and purpose of physical intimacy. Until these disagreements can be sorted out, I believe that all Anglicans should abstain from sexual contact. This would bind the Communion together in shared sacrifice. It would also give heterosexuals a deeper appreciation of the celibacy that they are urging upon gay Christians, and I think it would bring our crisis to a speedy conclusion.
Such a fast would require strict policing, so I was encouraged to learn that the American Anglican Council is setting up a Compliance Office to monitor the Episcopal Church's response to the communique. I think without too much persuasion they would be willing to accept the job.
The Archbishop of Canterbury speaks to the Geneal Synod of the Church of England today at just a littel after 9 a. m. EST. I will link to his remarks as soon as I have a url.
I finally tracked down a url for this interview that the Archbishop of Canterbury gave to a Tanzanian newspaper just before he left that country. You may have seen it elsewhere by now, but I am posting it here because I think it is a significant document. (You might want to copy the text into a word document; it is difficult to read online.)
If widely circulated, I believe it will significantly handicap Bishop Jefferts Schori in her efforts to persuade our Church to accept the difficult recommendations being urged upon us by the Primates. I say this in part because Rowan Williams asserts that gay people living in relationships should not be ordained Not ordained as bishops, mind you, but simply not ordained. In the wake of the meeting in Tanzania, both he and Peter Akinola have spoken out against gay ordination. Akinola is under the mistaken impression that the Primates’ communiqué touches upon this issue. It does not. But these two statements, one on the heels of the other, suggest if we accept the current recommendations of the Primates, other “recommendations” will soon by on their way.
Perhaps more alarming, Williams' statements demonstrate that he has an embraced a view of the Communion that vests unprecedented authority in his office and that of the other Instruments of Unity. No such authority has never been conferred upon the instruments by the member Churches of the Communion, but Williams seems to have joined the Akinolytes in behaving as though it has. This leads to the use of profoundly troubling language about “standards” and “teachings” within the Communion.
The distinction between a belief that is held by a majority of the Churches in the Communion and one that is an enforceable “standard” would not seem to be difficult for a man of Williams’ intellect to make, but, increasingly, he fails to make it. Likewise, his view that Lambeth resolutions constitute “teachings” that command allegiance is patently false.
If however, we are going to start throwing resolutions at one another and demanding submission, how about this one:
Union Among the Churches of the Anglican Communion - Encyclical Letter 1.5
There are certain principles of church order which, your Committee consider, ought to be distinctly recognised and set forth, as of great importance for the maintenance of union among the Churches of our Communion.
1 First, that the duly certified action of every national or particular Church, and of each ecclesiastical province (or diocese not included in a province), in the exercise of its own discipline, should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members.
2. Secondly, that when a diocese, or territorial sphere of administration, has been constituted by the authority of any Church or province of this Communion within its own limits, no bishop or other clergyman of any other Church should exercise his functions within that diocese without the consent of the bishop thereof.
3. Thirdly, that no bishop should authorise to officiate in his diocese a clergyman coming from another Church or province, unless such clergyman present letters testimonial, countersigned by the bishop of the diocese from which he comes; such letters to be, as nearly as possible, in the form adopted by such Church or province in the case of the transfer of a clergyman from one diocese to another.
This foundational piece of work from the Encyclical released with unanimous approval after the Lambeth Conference of 1878 would seem to deserve at least as much respect as the 1998 resolution on human sexuality. But Williams’ comments suggest a willingness to disregard it. His current position indicates to me that at this delicate moment, everything about the way we govern ourselves is up for grabs. The archbishop is attempting to bestow moral legitimacy upon positions that are politically expedient and nothing more.
We lack the influence to stop him in this disingenuous pursuit, but it is essential that we call attention to his behavior and consider its implications for the wellbeing of our Church.
I was glad to hear Bishop Jefferts Schori say that while the Primates have asked us not to "authorize" Rites of Blessing for same-sex relatinships, they have not asked us to stop blessing such relationships as we currenlty do. There are people out there who would have you believe that I made that distinction up.
Archbishop Venables of the Southern Cone has already called the PB's interpreation "alarmingly disingenuous," but I think that Bishop Jefferts Schori would have taken special care to get her facts straight on this point, knowing that our willingness to assent to the recommendations might well depend on it.
In her presentation to the staff at Church Center in New York, Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has argued that we need to accept the recommendations of the Primates to keep “the conversation” about homosexuality going in the Anglican Communion.
Tobias Haller, BSG (Brotherhood of Saint Gregory) and FOTB (Friend of This Blog) has written an extensive essay on the Episcopal Church’s failure to make a theological case to justify its actions in blessing gay relationships and ordaining a gay bishop.
Both of these people are much smarter than I am, and I urge you to listen to Bishop Katharine and read the good Tobias.
But—and you knew there was a “but”—I can’t help wondering if these two thoughtful, seminary-trained (and I don’t mean that as a slur) people and others like them aren’t missing, or at the very least under-appreciating an essential point:
Example is infinitely more powerful than argument.
If words were enough, the Incarnation would have been unnecessary.
We are being asked to provide no further examples of the gifts a gay or lesbian bishop might bring to that office. We are being asked, at least by some of the Primates, to deprive our Church, our Communion and our world of the example of gay men and lesbian women living in life-giving, Church-blessed partnerships.
How does acceding to these requests increase our chances of persuading people that we have done the right thing?
(Update: I have given another listen to the PB's presenation. She explictly endorese the value of "incarnational encounters", yet wants us to refrain from providing them. I don't get it.)
Marshall Scott is asking the only question that matters.
Matt Thompson at Political Spaghetti has an illuminating, but depressing series of posts on the Nigerian legislation that Bishop John Bryson Chane began speaking out against more than a year ago. Matt has pretty much demolished all of the rationalizations that conservative Anglicans such as Bishop Martyn Minns have used to explain away Archbishop Peter J. Akinola's support for the legislation.
U. N. Human Rights experts have spoken out against this bill, noting that it violates the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and have urged the Nigerian government to withdraw it.
Here is some of what they said:
" We are apprehensive that, if adopted, the proposed law will make persons engaging in, or perceived to be engaging in, same sex relationships in Nigeria more susceptible to arbitrary arrests, detention, torture and ill-treatment and expose them even more to violence and attacks on their dignity. The proposed law may lead to the denial of opportunities and conditions necessary for the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights. In particular, the Bill is likely to undermine HIV/AIDS education and prevention efforts by driving stigmatized communities underground, posing a threat to the right to the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health."
Here is what Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, has had to say: Nuthin'.
I am just back from the Diocesan Council retreat, and just starting to poke around on the Web. There's good stuff elsewhere, Our home page has news of Bishop Jefferts Schori's Webcast on Wednesday at 10 a. m., as well as links to the audio of a presentation she gave at Church Center on Friday. Episcope has links to a number of recent news stories, as does Thinking Anglicans. And be sure to have a look at Tobias Haller's essay "Of the Danger of Self-Evident Truths.+
I haven't thought about any of these items deeply enough to have a response, but I do sense a real tension among those who support the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life and ministry of our Church between fighting recommendations that they find hateful, and supporting a presiding bishop toward whom they feel great affection.
Anglican Journal has an interview with Canadian Primate Andrew Hutchison.
The lede:
Archbishop Andrew Hutchison, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, said that he had been “profoundly discouraged” by the communiqué issued by Anglican leaders warning the U.S. church of consequences if it did not abandon its liberal stance on sexuality, and had found it “tempting” not to sign it.
Archbishop Hutchison acknowledged that some Canadian Anglicans are “angry” that he signed the communiqué, but explained that he had taken his lead from U.S. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. “I told her (Bishop Jefferts Schori), ‘It’s all about you. If you decide not to sign, I won’t sign. I’ll be there with you.’” He added that Bishop Jefferts Schori had told him that not signing the communiqué would send a message to the church and to the world “that at great expense and effort, we have accomplished nothing and we have nothing to say.”
The communiqué had “virtually not one encouraging word for gay and lesbian people who have felt so far on the margins,” Archbishop Hutchison told a staff briefing at the national church office in Toronto shortly after his return from the primates’ meeting held Feb. 15-19 in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania.
And don't miss this bit:
“To my relief and astonishment, there was no discussion of Canada; they were so eager to jump on the American case,” he said.
I leave in a few hours for our Diocesan Council retreat, and won't be online again until Saturday evening at the earliest. In my absence, I wanted to direct you to a) to Bonnie Anderson's letter four items down blog; b) the excellent responses we have received to The Question of Consensus and c) this questions for today.
Might there be unintended consequences to accepting the recommendations of the Primates? (I keep typing Primates as Pirates. Don't know what that's about.) If so, what might they be?
To get the conversational ball rolling, let me suggest that one unintended consequence of accepting the Primates' recommendations would be the compromising of our political witness. We can hardly ask other people to risk their political or institutional security to help build God's Kingdom when those of us who pledge to do this at Baptism retreat from the field.
What other unintended consequences, positive and negative , do you perceive?
His piece in The Tablet provides a depth missing from newspaper reports. Registration may be required.
The other must-read is Bonnie Anderson's letter three items down. I know I have said that before. But you know what? I will probably say it again.
Peter Akinola seems to think that the Primates have asked us to stop a) celebrating gay marriages and b) ordaining gay men and lesbians.
The problem is that we don't do a, and the Primates communiqué says not a word about b.
But Akinola is clearly against ordaining homosexuals. So, if we are willing to allow the Primates to assume governance for some of our diocese, declare a moratorium on the consecration of gay bishops and stop authorizing rites for the blessing of same-sex relationships, we can remain in the Anglican Communion where he can force his opinion upon us.
So there's that to look forward to.
Akinola's remarks came after an otherwise auspicious occasion, the launch of second CAPA HIV/AIDS TB & MALARIA Strategic Plan in Nairobi.
...but you all keep saying such interesting things. But before you read this item, be sure to see Bonnie Anderson's letter one item down.
Back? Here we go::
Here is an analysis of the Primates Communique by Mark Harris of Preludium, who, it should be remembered, is not just some scruffy blog jockey, but a member of the Executive Council, which meets early next month in Portland. He writes: The Bishops could affirm or deny the requests, and deal with the consequences. But why must they? Suppose the requests were determined to be misplaced – that they belonged not to the House of Bishops but to the whole deliberative assembly of Synod (General Convention)? Suppose, even better, that the forced choice between conscience and communion was rejected? Suppose the Bishops said, we choose a better way – conscience and communion?
The Admiral of Morality picks apart Rowan Williams' recent article in the Telegraph (see two items down). My favorite bit:
"In a column in the Daily Telegraph, the Archbishop of Canterbury submits the following statement:
"'One of the hardest things in all this has been to keep insisting on the absolute moral imperative of combating bigotry and violence against gay people, and the need to secure appropriate civic and legal protection for couples who have chosen to share their lives. These are different matters from whether the Church has the freedom to bless same-sex unions.'
"One of the hardest things in all this is that Canterbury continues to pursue this line of reasoning with a supposedly straight face."
The Rev. Susan Russell takes Bishop Kirk Smith of Arizona, a former colleague of hers, to task for shedding crocodile tears as he endorses the Primates' communique.
Meanwhile, the Mad Priest has a "Cunning plan" for a worldwide Episcopal Church, And Father Jake, channeling his friend Bill Bartosh, says it is time we put an end to our equivocating and authorized gay marriage.
The pot, I believe, has been vigorously stirred.
Update: The Telegraph has this, but it doesn't advance the story.
The president of our House of Deputies has issued a statement on the Primates Meeting which raises a critical question: Is it appropriate to send her flowers?
Here's an excerpt: "As president of the 800-plus member House of Deputies, it is my duty to ensure that the voice of the clergy and the laity of our Church will be heard as the Church discusses and debates the Primates' requests and that that process will not be pre-empted by the House of Bishops or any other group. I have already begun to work toward that end.
"All Anglicans must remember that the second Lambeth Conference in 1878 recommended that "the duly certified action of every national or particular Church, and of each ecclesiastical province (or diocese not included in a province), in the exercise of its own discipline, should be respected by all the other Churches, and by their individual members."
Meanwhile, ENS has an excellent round-up of bishops' statements and comments. Pay special attention to anything said by Bishops Bruce MacPherson, Don Wimberly and the other so-called Camp Allen bishops. It is possible, though by no means certain, that their brother and sister bishops will acquiesce in this minority's Primate-abetted grab for power. But if the House of Deputies resists, we will have a constitutional struggle on our hands.
Bishop William D. Persell has thoughtfully dissected the Primates' communiqué.
"As bishop of Chicago I will not sacrifice the gifts we enjoy as an inclusive church so that we might conform to a doctrinal uniformity that is antithetical to our historic identity and experience. I will continue to invite gay and lesbian Christians into the full life and ministry of our diocesan community, and celebrate their gifts of ministry and covenanted relationships. Admittedly, there are those within our Church, both in our diocese and the larger Communion, who prefer we suspend our efforts at full inclusion for the sake of a seat in the Communion’s councils. That approach, which we engaged in 2005 by our voluntary withdrawal from the Anglican Consultative Council, and institution of a moratorium on episcopal consents, has done little to increase sympathy and understanding of our church culture and experience among our critics. To continue in this fashion would undermine our integrity as a Spirit-led community, and constitute a moral injustice for our gay and lesbian members. I, for one, am not prepared to make that sacrifice. I continue to be profoundly grateful for the contributions of our gay and lesbian members, lay and ordained, in our diocesan life."
Bishop James E. Waggoner of Spokane has also expressed some reservations.
And, in case you missed it earlier, Bishop John Chane's statement is here.
"Why the Anglican Communion Matters" by Rowan Williams in the Telegraph.
"Episcopal Choices" by Rachel Zoll includes a quote from Ann Fontaine, in an essay which you can find four items down.
The Right Reverend John Bryson Chane
Bishop of Washington
February 22, 2007
Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
Like many of you, I have spent the last several days studying and praying over the recent communiqué from the Primates Meeting of the Anglican Communion and our Presiding Bishop’s Word to the Church. Like many of you, I feel that I do not yet have sufficient information about what is expected from the Episcopal Church to make a conclusive judgment about all of the recommendations that the Primates have put before us.
It is not yet clear to me which of our Church’s governing bodies is best equipped to make a full response to the Communion. Nor do I fully understand what the plan that designates a “primatial vicar” for those who do not accept certain actions of our Church would look like in practice. That is to say nothing of whether this intrusion in our governance can be justified.
I will learn more about these issues through conversations next week with the Presiding Bishop, and through the deliberations of our Executive Council, which meets March 2-4, in Portland, Oregon. I hope to write to you again after the annual spring meeting of the House of Bishops, which begins on March 17 at Camp Allen, in Texas, but let me make a few observations today.
I am deeply distressed that the Primates spent so much time discussing the internal life of the Episcopal Church and devoted so little attention to the woeful state of our global community. The Gospel summons us to a unified effort against the spread of HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, hunger, poverty, human rights violations, the degradation of women and children and the behavior of corrupt governments. Yet the Primates continue to behave as though quashing dissent on issues of human sexuality were the central calling of the Christian faith.
Regarding the recommendations to the Episcopal Church, I am willing to be persuaded that a temporary compromise on issues of governance may be necessary to keep the Anglican Communion intact. However, under no circumstances will I support a moratorium on the consecration of individuals living in same-sex relationships to the episcopacy, and under no circumstances will I enforce a ban on the blessing of same sex unions in the Diocese of Washington, if that, in fact, is what the Primates are asking us to do.
Christians throughout the world are born into cultures that persecute, stigmatize and deny the dignity of God’s gay and lesbian children. We marginalize them, make them scapegoats and refuse their manifold gifts. The Episcopal Church is as guilty of these offenses as any other, and in recognizing this we have begun a journey of repentance. In its fourth decade, this journey is still incomplete, and its success, as ever, is in doubt. How agonizing then, in this holy season of Lent, to see the Archbishop of Canterbury succumb to the Archbishop of Nigeria and call upon us to remain in our sins.
Please pray for the Anglican Communion, for the Episcopal Church and your brothers and sisters in the Diocese of Washington as we reason together to find our way forward.
In Christ's Peace, Power and Love,
The Rt. Rev. John Bryson Chane, D.D.
Bishop of Washington
The Bishop of Northern California.
As the Episcopal Church considers its response to the recommendations of the Anglican Primates a question has arisen that I can't answer, and I would love the benefit of your thoughts.
Episcopalians who believe we should accede to the Primates' recommendations, but who support the full inclusion of gay and lesbian Christians in the Church, are arguing that in acceding to the recommendations, we would only be pausing in our pursuit of full inclusion. They suggest that room is being cleared in which serious discussion about human sexuality can eventually begin, and that from that discussion a new consensus might emerge. Therefore, the are arguing, placing a moratorium on the consecration of a bishop in a same-sex relationship, and banning the blessing of same-sex relationships (I don't think this is what is the Primates are asking us to do, but some folks are willing to take that step, so I use their interpretation here) may merely be a temporary measure.
This thinking informs the Presiding Bishop's recent "Word to the Church," and is articulated here by the Rev. Tony Clavier, who says: "Surely if it is in God's will that gays and lesbians may marry, or bishops in same sex relationships are the thing of the future, we can all wait to see if this revelation becomes apparent more widely across the world before we break ranks with our family and tradition?"
My question is this, if a change in Church teaching is to occur on these issues, how will it occur? Can changes of this sort occur through orderly consensus in a process led by Primates and scholars? Are their examples in history that support such a view?
I'd appreciate any insight you have to offer on this
The Rev. Ann Fontaine, a deputy to General Convention, 2006, from the Diocese of Wyoming has written a thoughtful reflection on the Primates' communique and Bishop Jefferts Schori's "Word to the Church." To read it click the "continue reading"
It includes this message to the Communion: "If you do not want us at Lambeth 2008 - we accept that and will use all the funds we would have spent on that meeting for the relief of suffering around the world ... This will be our communal fast."
And speaking of Ann Fontaine, visit her new blog, Green Lent.
The must-read is from Mark Harris, who concludes:
"Archbishop Williams is a quite remarkable person and carrying a load no one ought to bear. It seems he feels he has been placed where he is to bear the marks of suffering for unity. That suffering has become, it seems, his integrity.
"But unity has already been established in Jesus Christ. The unity of the Anglican Communion as a regulatory agency is not the unity that Our Lord prayed for. That unity is relational, not confessional. The Creator and The Annointed One are one in relation. Surely the Archbishop's integrity of person and position can be relational as well. Unity is not the cause for which he must suffer. My prayer is that he can let it go.
"The unity of the Anglican Communion may be let go of as easily as breathing out. When it came into being, it was relational. It has existed relationally. Perhaps even in its disunity it can still be relational."
Richard has A Personal Manifesto, at Caught by the Light.
Dean Nick Knisely of Entangled States has news that his bishop, Kirk Smith of Arizona, is endorsing the Primates' recommendatios and predicting that the House of Bishops will endorse them as well.
The Anglican Scotist: A Tacit Liberal Triumph in Tanzania (On women's ordination)
And Father Jones, the Anglican Centrist has an Ash Wednesday reflection on some of the issues raised by the meeting in Tanzania.
A brainy, witty response to the Primates has arrived from Bishop Paul Marshall of Bethlehem, and I urge you to read it all beneath the "continue reading" tab. By way of inducment I offer:
if how others view us becomes our consuming concern, our mission will suffer or die. Our diocesan mission statement (Live God's Love: Tell What You Have Seen and Heard) requires us to be witnesses. If our witness in word and deed is being drowned in fears about what our cousins may be thinking about us, the question of idolatry will need to be explored. Is the Compass Rose ever a golden calf?
Bishop Steven Charleston of Episcopal Divinity School in Cambride, Massachusetts has written to the seminary community. The letter is available by clicking the "continue reading tab. Hre is an excerpt:
:Enough is enough. It is time to make our intentions clear, come what may. I pray that you will help EDS carry that message to every corner of the Church, in humility and with an open mind, but carry it with a resolve that will not bend under pressure or falter under threats. This church is either truly open to all, or it is closed to the Spirit. We either stand for what we know is just and embrace our GLBT members, or we stand aside as justice is denied. There is no easy way out of this choice. There is only a gospel way forward.
Bishop James J. Jelinek of Minnesota writes:
I, for one bishop, will not turn my back on full inclusion of all persons, which has been at the heart of the Diocese of Minnesota for 150 years—since the time when our first Bishop, Henry Benjamin Whipple, and American Indian leaders worked together to provide ministry across social boundaries.
Jake has the T. S. Eliot poem I was going to use, so here, instead, is this bit of The Brothers Karamazov by Fyodor Dostoevsky. (Hat tip, Deacon Vicki Black:)
"No one can commit so great a sin as to exhaust the infinite love God. Or can there be a sin that would exceed the love of God? Only you must never forget to think continually of repentance, but dismiss your fear altogether. Believe that God loves you in a way you cannot even conceive of. He loves you in spite of your sin and in your sin. So go and do not be afraid."
The Mad Priest writes:
The only way forward that I can see that would bring God's love and a proper place in the Church to gay people is if TEC, within or without the Communion, declares full equality in all things ecclesiastical and sacramental for gay people and other well behaved deviants. However, in order to be truly just they must make sure from the outset that this would be a universal offer and not just restricted to Americans. In other words they would have to have a worked out mission plan and church planting strategy for the whole world. O.k. they can't set up diocese in Mongolia on day one, but something more than just an intention must be in place before they declare their independence from the Grand Tufti.
His letter to his diocese is beneath the "continue reading" tab.
Here are a few sentences:
Over the years I have been prepared to make certain accommodations to meet the concerns of those whose view of the Gospel promise differs somewhat from my own. I am fully aware that those accommodations have not been uncontroversial. Now, I want to make it abundantly clear that I am not in the least prepared to make any concession that strikes at the heart of my conviction that gay and lesbian people are God’s beloved children. They are we. Our witness to the Gospel would be unthinkably deformed if by some tragic misjudgment we willingly submitted ourselves to vivisection.
A Guardian editorial on the Anglican Primates meeting:
This is a victory for the Nigerian archbishop Peter Akinola, whose attempts to intervene in America by appointing a conservative evangelical priest now have official support, and a defeat for Episcopalian bishops who had hoped to be allowed to find their own path. It is also an embarrassment for the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose own progressive views on sexuality now have little to do with the preaching of his own church. He is left looking like a man who has put unity ahead of everything, including belief. In the wake of the deal, outsiders might be forgiven for asking what the Anglican communion now stands for, apart from its own continued existence.
The Washington Post: Some U. S, Bishops reject Anglican gay rights edict
Bishop Steven Charleston, president of the Episcopal Divinity School: "I would be willing to accept being told I'm not in communion with places like Nigeria if it meant