... whom I have never met but have wanted to meet since I first read his blog three or four years ago. I'm thinking of Father Al Kimel, a former Anglican priest who swam the Tiber to Rome maybe two years back. Thanks to Stand Firm and the wonderful Sarah Hey for her heeartfelt post on Father Kimel's retirement from blogging (kudos to Greg, Matt, Jackie, et. al., as well, of course).
Even though we all have our different stories, Father Kimel's tale is one that should resonate with any of us who have loved the Episcopal Church and who have grieved to see it depart from orthodox faith and practice ... and go off the deep end.
Since Father Kimel so emotionally tells his last blogging tale with an appropriate quote from Tolkien, he got me reflecting on another quote from The Lord of the Rings that I think is appropriate here. Those of us who love Tolkien undoubtedly will remember Bilbo's walking song as revised by Frodo while riding through the Shire before meeting the elves on their way to the Grey Havens (since I'm typing it from memory, pardon any errors):
Still round the corner there may wait
A new road or a secret gate
And though I oft have passed them by
A day shall come at last when I
Shall take the hidden paths that run
West of the moon, east of the sun
That walking song was on my heart a few days ago while meandering through the streets of DC. While it obviously refers to death/eternity, it also is suitable for any closing chapter in our lives.
Namarie indeed, Father Kimel. But as you say goodbye, do know that your faithful service to our Lord and your work to renew the Episcopal Church have not been in vain. You have inspired people who you do not know and who have never met you to stay faithful to our Lord and Savior. We remember your work on the Baltimore Declaration. In your departure from TEC, our loss was Rome's gain. We thank you for providing us with, for a few years, one of the most spiritually sound, astute, and challenging blogs out there. And if our Lord ever leads you to take up blogging again, many of us will be grateful.
May our Lord grant the healing that you need, for "the hands of a healer are the hands of a king" (Tolkien again, rough paraphrase from memory).
Friday, June 29, 2007
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Clarity Here
A June 16 Richmond Times-Dispatch interview with Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori provides more clarity on the denomination’s stances on controversial issues.
*On the mission of the Episcopal Church: “The church’s role is to remember what God’s mission is and that’s the healing of the world.”
*On gay and lesbian issues: “The full inclusion of gay and lesbian people is part of our mission.”
*On opposition to a woman being presiding bishop and women's ordination: “Three diocesan bishops out of 110 in the Episcopal Church hold that opinion. . . . It's not apparently been a problem.”
*On why it’s exciting to be an Anglican today: “The very fact that we're having controversy means that … opportunities are enormous to grow individually and as congregations, as faithful people, to grow in service to the rest of the world.”
None of these statements is revelatory; they repeat either themes of Jefferts Schori’s tenure as presiding bishop or statements made by other Episcopal Church leaders. What is different here is that she has provided short, direct answers that cut through any confusion:
*Her reference to “the healing of the world” takes all of her themes concerning the “dream of God,” “coming home,” the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), et.al., and distills them down to five words.
*Her summary statement of the church’s stance on gay and lesbian issues probably is the most clear, succinct statement anyone has made to date.
*Her statistics regarding opposition to female bishops (and female clergy in general) focus only on bishops and ignore laity. Similarly, her descriptions of departing Episcopal congregations recently have focused not on the number of people leaving the denomination, but the number of congregations lost. In both cases, she chooses smaller numbers that boost her cause.
*She reiterates her oft-repeated view that dealing with controversial issues produces spiritual growth. She does not look at controversial issues in terms of how they go against Scripture or the traditions of the church.
Back in February at the Episcopal Urban Caucus meeting, Bishop Jefferts Schori predicted that clarity would prove forthcoming as to where the Episcopal Church stands on controversial issues. With the House of Bishops and the Executive Council at this point apparently agreeing in their lack of movement toward meeting Anglican primates' requests, and with Bishop Jefferts Schori making statements like these, "clarity" may have hit a new high watermark.
*On the mission of the Episcopal Church: “The church’s role is to remember what God’s mission is and that’s the healing of the world.”
*On gay and lesbian issues: “The full inclusion of gay and lesbian people is part of our mission.”
*On opposition to a woman being presiding bishop and women's ordination: “Three diocesan bishops out of 110 in the Episcopal Church hold that opinion. . . . It's not apparently been a problem.”
*On why it’s exciting to be an Anglican today: “The very fact that we're having controversy means that … opportunities are enormous to grow individually and as congregations, as faithful people, to grow in service to the rest of the world.”
None of these statements is revelatory; they repeat either themes of Jefferts Schori’s tenure as presiding bishop or statements made by other Episcopal Church leaders. What is different here is that she has provided short, direct answers that cut through any confusion:
*Her reference to “the healing of the world” takes all of her themes concerning the “dream of God,” “coming home,” the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), et.al., and distills them down to five words.
*Her summary statement of the church’s stance on gay and lesbian issues probably is the most clear, succinct statement anyone has made to date.
*Her statistics regarding opposition to female bishops (and female clergy in general) focus only on bishops and ignore laity. Similarly, her descriptions of departing Episcopal congregations recently have focused not on the number of people leaving the denomination, but the number of congregations lost. In both cases, she chooses smaller numbers that boost her cause.
*She reiterates her oft-repeated view that dealing with controversial issues produces spiritual growth. She does not look at controversial issues in terms of how they go against Scripture or the traditions of the church.
Back in February at the Episcopal Urban Caucus meeting, Bishop Jefferts Schori predicted that clarity would prove forthcoming as to where the Episcopal Church stands on controversial issues. With the House of Bishops and the Executive Council at this point apparently agreeing in their lack of movement toward meeting Anglican primates' requests, and with Bishop Jefferts Schori making statements like these, "clarity" may have hit a new high watermark.
When Is a Church Building Like a National Park?
The property issues in the Episcopal Church continue to affect the news. On June 26, an appeals court ruled in favor of the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles concerning the properties of four parishes that left the Episcopal Church. The ruling overturns a lower-court decision that proved favorable to the parishes. And just a few days earlier, the Rev. Jan Nunley of the Episcopal News Service (ENS) provided her take on the property issues.
In that blog entry, Nunley argues that even while parishioners pay money for their church buildings, the property is held in trust for the Episcopal Church as a whole. She compares the situation with taxpayers whose dollars go to funding national parks; they cannot take any part of the property no matter how much money they've contributed.
The problem is that taxpayers may well pay for parks that they never use, but parishioners pay for church buildings in which they worship. More: they not only pay for, but participate in, activities devoted to serving God in these buildings. They see their family members and friends grow up in, baptized in, and confirmed in these churches. They dedicate their money, time, and effort into refurbishing meeting spaces for youth and other groups. National parks, as wonderful as they are, normally are not connected with major life events -- or, more importantly, peoples' relationships with God -- as churches are.
Even more: the church becomes home to a variety of groups/ministries throughout the week. What is to happen to all of the ministries when the whole parish departs if all of the parishioners must leave the building? These are real, heartfelt issues, and it's shortsighted to boil the issue down to a matter of payment.
There certainly are substantial arguments to be made on both sides of the aisle about property. There are also some serious issues to be dealt with individually and, if a parish or a majority of a parish leaves the Episcopal Church, perhaps collectively. How does your view on property relate to, and affect, your ecclesiology -- your beliefs concerning the church? If you believe that the church's property belongs to the congregation who paid for it, are you in favor of a more congregational mode of church government as opposed to a heirarchical one? Where do bishops and apostolic succession fit into the picture? Or, when a church espouses heresy, does that itself mean that congregations should fight for church buildings as a way of stopping the spread of heresy? Many orthodox Anglicans today answer that last question resoundingly in the affirmative.
There are questions for the denomination as well. Yes, past parishioners may have contributed to the parish expecting that it would have been available to future generations of Episcopalians, and that truly is a serious concern. But it's also fair to speculate that many of them would have opposed the Episcopal Church's drift from orthodox faith and practice, possibly to the point of agreeing with those who want to keep the buildings as they leave. Given that scenario, how valid is the "trust" argument?
My colleague Alan Wisdom argues that there are also other, less obvious, questions that people should perhaps consider. What impact should the reality of the communion of saints have concerning our view of to whom the property belongs? Can any piece of property be said to belong to only a parish or even a denomination? Does it instead belong to the communion of saints -- all Christians living today, as well as those now with God in heaven and those yet to be born? This line of thinking, while perhaps novel and too impractical for many, has some serious implications for many issues.
But church buildings are not like national parks. The investment made goes far deeper than money, and hits the hearts of people, some of whom have spent a large portion of their life at a given parish.
And the Episcopal Church, in its determination to retain its property, has shut down any attempts at a negotiated settlement (in the case of the 11 departing Virginia parishes, at least). The denomination has, in Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's own words, resorted to "the big guns," supposedly because "the pastoral solution has failed." But what "pastoral solution" was even halfway attempted? In Virginia, the diocese cut off negotiations and scuttled the Protocol for Departing Congregations that had been in development by a diocesan special committee for nearly a year's time.
It also bears remembering that former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said that diocesen bishops are free to pursue what the Living Church magazine described as "an amicable settlement with a congregation that wants to leave the Episcopal Church and retain its building." But ever since Bishop Jefferts Schori assumed her office last November, the national church has taken a legal role in attempting to keep property.
There are serious issues here for the Episcopal Church: by not being open to negotiation with parishes, by demanding that orthodox parishioners leave property without negotiations, by calling them "dissidents" and pitting them rhetorically against "faithful" Episcopalians who stay, by declaring to the press that their leavetaking essentially is inconsequential ... what type of message is the church sending to the world and to those who are leaving? How is a lawsuit consistent with blessing people who leave, a task that Bishop Jefferts Schori has advocated? How is a lawsuit in any way contributing to the health of the Anglican Communion when the primates requested in their February communique that all lawsuits should cease?
For all of its self-professed "more gracious" view of Christianity (according to Bishop Jefferts Schori, at least), the Episcopal Church is now seen by most orthodox Anglicans as hostile toward orthodox faith and practice. Moreover, the denomination is seen to be uncaring and all too laissez-faire concerning orthodox parishioners and, perhaps even more so, parishioners who depart -- uncaring and laissez-faire, that is, except when it comes to retaining the property. One Virginia parishioner said to me a few months back (to roughly paraphrase from memory), "Whatever I may have felt beforehand, why in the world would I now want to stay in a denomination that is suing my parish -- that thinks so little of us as to sue us? You don't do that to your own worst enemy, and this is supposed to be a Christian church!" Where is grace?
It does not have to be this way. I know of a Presbyterian church that left the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) several years ago for a more conservative denomination. The presbytery reportedly told the congregation, in essence, "We don't want you to leave, but if you must, we'll sell you the property for a price." The original building had long been paid off and the congregation had paid for a building expansion not too many years earlier. Paying for the building in essence a second time (though at a greatly reduced rate) may well have seemed unfair to some of the parishioners. Nevertheless, an agreement that recognized the claim on the property by both the congregation and the denomination was reached peaceably and amicably. There's no reason why such a model couldn't work in the Episcopal Church.
But in Virginia recently, when asked about how to respond to congregations leaving, Bishop Jefferts Schori mentioned blessing them and telling them, "we'll leave the light on." That phrase (with the addition of "for you" at the end) may have been a humorous folksy sentiment for Motel 6, but in today's tense Episcopal Church climate it conveys flippancy (at best) instead of warmth. The Episcopal Church apparently cares more for its property than its (orthodox) people, and more for the perceived "trust" in those buildings than (orthodox) teaching and theology. Those perceptions undoubtedly will only encourage more orthodox Anglicans to leave the Episcopal Church. An analogy comparing church buildings with national parks sadly (if unintentionally) trivializes the heart issues involved with the painful choice of leaving a denomination.
In that blog entry, Nunley argues that even while parishioners pay money for their church buildings, the property is held in trust for the Episcopal Church as a whole. She compares the situation with taxpayers whose dollars go to funding national parks; they cannot take any part of the property no matter how much money they've contributed.
The problem is that taxpayers may well pay for parks that they never use, but parishioners pay for church buildings in which they worship. More: they not only pay for, but participate in, activities devoted to serving God in these buildings. They see their family members and friends grow up in, baptized in, and confirmed in these churches. They dedicate their money, time, and effort into refurbishing meeting spaces for youth and other groups. National parks, as wonderful as they are, normally are not connected with major life events -- or, more importantly, peoples' relationships with God -- as churches are.
Even more: the church becomes home to a variety of groups/ministries throughout the week. What is to happen to all of the ministries when the whole parish departs if all of the parishioners must leave the building? These are real, heartfelt issues, and it's shortsighted to boil the issue down to a matter of payment.
There certainly are substantial arguments to be made on both sides of the aisle about property. There are also some serious issues to be dealt with individually and, if a parish or a majority of a parish leaves the Episcopal Church, perhaps collectively. How does your view on property relate to, and affect, your ecclesiology -- your beliefs concerning the church? If you believe that the church's property belongs to the congregation who paid for it, are you in favor of a more congregational mode of church government as opposed to a heirarchical one? Where do bishops and apostolic succession fit into the picture? Or, when a church espouses heresy, does that itself mean that congregations should fight for church buildings as a way of stopping the spread of heresy? Many orthodox Anglicans today answer that last question resoundingly in the affirmative.
There are questions for the denomination as well. Yes, past parishioners may have contributed to the parish expecting that it would have been available to future generations of Episcopalians, and that truly is a serious concern. But it's also fair to speculate that many of them would have opposed the Episcopal Church's drift from orthodox faith and practice, possibly to the point of agreeing with those who want to keep the buildings as they leave. Given that scenario, how valid is the "trust" argument?
My colleague Alan Wisdom argues that there are also other, less obvious, questions that people should perhaps consider. What impact should the reality of the communion of saints have concerning our view of to whom the property belongs? Can any piece of property be said to belong to only a parish or even a denomination? Does it instead belong to the communion of saints -- all Christians living today, as well as those now with God in heaven and those yet to be born? This line of thinking, while perhaps novel and too impractical for many, has some serious implications for many issues.
But church buildings are not like national parks. The investment made goes far deeper than money, and hits the hearts of people, some of whom have spent a large portion of their life at a given parish.
And the Episcopal Church, in its determination to retain its property, has shut down any attempts at a negotiated settlement (in the case of the 11 departing Virginia parishes, at least). The denomination has, in Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's own words, resorted to "the big guns," supposedly because "the pastoral solution has failed." But what "pastoral solution" was even halfway attempted? In Virginia, the diocese cut off negotiations and scuttled the Protocol for Departing Congregations that had been in development by a diocesan special committee for nearly a year's time.
It also bears remembering that former Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold said that diocesen bishops are free to pursue what the Living Church magazine described as "an amicable settlement with a congregation that wants to leave the Episcopal Church and retain its building." But ever since Bishop Jefferts Schori assumed her office last November, the national church has taken a legal role in attempting to keep property.
There are serious issues here for the Episcopal Church: by not being open to negotiation with parishes, by demanding that orthodox parishioners leave property without negotiations, by calling them "dissidents" and pitting them rhetorically against "faithful" Episcopalians who stay, by declaring to the press that their leavetaking essentially is inconsequential ... what type of message is the church sending to the world and to those who are leaving? How is a lawsuit consistent with blessing people who leave, a task that Bishop Jefferts Schori has advocated? How is a lawsuit in any way contributing to the health of the Anglican Communion when the primates requested in their February communique that all lawsuits should cease?
For all of its self-professed "more gracious" view of Christianity (according to Bishop Jefferts Schori, at least), the Episcopal Church is now seen by most orthodox Anglicans as hostile toward orthodox faith and practice. Moreover, the denomination is seen to be uncaring and all too laissez-faire concerning orthodox parishioners and, perhaps even more so, parishioners who depart -- uncaring and laissez-faire, that is, except when it comes to retaining the property. One Virginia parishioner said to me a few months back (to roughly paraphrase from memory), "Whatever I may have felt beforehand, why in the world would I now want to stay in a denomination that is suing my parish -- that thinks so little of us as to sue us? You don't do that to your own worst enemy, and this is supposed to be a Christian church!" Where is grace?
It does not have to be this way. I know of a Presbyterian church that left the Presbyterian Church USA (PCUSA) several years ago for a more conservative denomination. The presbytery reportedly told the congregation, in essence, "We don't want you to leave, but if you must, we'll sell you the property for a price." The original building had long been paid off and the congregation had paid for a building expansion not too many years earlier. Paying for the building in essence a second time (though at a greatly reduced rate) may well have seemed unfair to some of the parishioners. Nevertheless, an agreement that recognized the claim on the property by both the congregation and the denomination was reached peaceably and amicably. There's no reason why such a model couldn't work in the Episcopal Church.
But in Virginia recently, when asked about how to respond to congregations leaving, Bishop Jefferts Schori mentioned blessing them and telling them, "we'll leave the light on." That phrase (with the addition of "for you" at the end) may have been a humorous folksy sentiment for Motel 6, but in today's tense Episcopal Church climate it conveys flippancy (at best) instead of warmth. The Episcopal Church apparently cares more for its property than its (orthodox) people, and more for the perceived "trust" in those buildings than (orthodox) teaching and theology. Those perceptions undoubtedly will only encourage more orthodox Anglicans to leave the Episcopal Church. An analogy comparing church buildings with national parks sadly (if unintentionally) trivializes the heart issues involved with the painful choice of leaving a denomination.
The Larger Implications of the Redding Controversy
It's easy in the midst of the controversy concerning the Rev. Ann Holmes Redding (the Diocese of Olympia clergyperson who considers herself to be both Muslim and Christian) to get so engrossed in the trees that you lose the bird's-eye view of the forest. Yes, her bishop's apparent (according to the Seattle Times) acceptance of her dual faiths is dismaying. But both Redding and the inclusive “local option” for dual faiths among clergy have a deeper significance: they are perhaps the most telling illustrations of where the Episcopal Church at a whole is now with relation to its place in the larger Anglican Communion.
Just as Redding views her conversion to Islam as a “calling … very much … about my identity and who I am supposed to be,” the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church recently told the Anglican Communion, “in truth the only thing we really have to offer [to the communion] is who we are.”
This statement came from the council’s June14 letter, “The Episcopal Church’s Commitment to Common Life in the Anglican Communion,” issued near the end of a June 11–14 meeting in
The council goes on to describe the denomination as a “community” of sincere Christians seeking God’s will who “cannot tell our brothers and sisters with certainty … where the Holy Spirit will guide this Church.” But without a radical reversal of direction, and with more and more orthodox Anglicans leaving the denomination (thus giving progressives even less opposition than they’ve encountered in the past few decades), the Episcopal Church’s direction toward increasingly heterodox theology and social witness seems abundantly clear.
That direction is clearly marked out by the Episcopal Church’s actions over the last four years:
* "Who we are”—the church that consented to the consecration of Gene Robinson as bishop and approved same-sex blessings as a local option partially as a reaction against the 1998 Lambeth conference, which upheld normative Anglican teaching concerning sexuality and marriage
* “Who we are”—the church that not only consented to Robinson’s consecration but proceeded with it even when many primates warned the denomination ahead of time that doing so would cause “tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level”
* "Who we are”—the church that insisted at its 75th General Convention in 2006 that it had only “strained” relationships in the Anglican Communion (the primates chose a very different word in their February communiqué, substituting “damaged” for “strained”)
* “Who we are”—the church whose House of Bishops in March of this year identified gay and lesbian rights as an essential part of its “gospel”
* “Who we are”—the church that continues to ignore the requests of the primates as same-sex blessings continue at the local level
And the council concludes its letter with these words: “We believe [t]he Episcopal Church can only offer who we are, with openness, honesty, integrity, and faithfulness, and our commitment never to choose to walk apart.”
Aye, there’s the rub. Implicitly, the council is arguing for the Episcopal Church as a local option in the Anglican Communion—a local option that is free to pursue its own path and continue to go against the mind of the larger communion. It is not asking for other Anglican Communion provinces to take the same path at this time, but it wants to be accepted for “who we are.”
Of course, the council does not want the Episcopal Church to “walk apart” from the Anglican Communion in the sense of consciously choosing to disassociate from the communion. (Orthodox Anglicans hold that the Episcopal Church already has “walked apart” by departing from Scripture and traditional Anglican teaching, and by failing to respond sufficiently to the rest of the Anglican Communion.) Doing so would mean a loss of both worldwide influence and mission. Episcopal Church Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has argued in recent months that the church can better influence the larger Christian body by staying within the Anglican Communion.
But neither does the council want the Episcopal Church to curb its sense of progressive justice. There is no mention in the council’s letter of any change for the good of the larger Anglican Communion or the larger body of Christ. The best that the council offers is assurances that the primates have been heard and taken seriously, and that “[t]he advice of the larger community will continue to find reflection in the actions we take.” But when has the Episcopal Church in the last four years truly heeded the primates’ “advice,” much less their “requests”?
The end result of this identity crisis seems to be a church where almost anything can go at the local level, a church that pursues (from a progressive point of view) ever-new revelation from God without the boundaries historically maintained by orthodox faith and practice. It’s a church where, as seems true for Rev. Ann Holmes Redding, a conviction of a local call from God trumps the understanding and faith of the wider body of Christ. Under such circumstances, both
Monday, April 2, 2007
Sometimes Life Is Too ...
Too ironic item #1:
All Episcopal Church General Convention 2006 merchandise is now available for rock-bottom prices. The irony? The Convention’s theme was “Come and Grow.”
Too disturbing item #2:
United Methodists are looking more seriously at entering into “full communion” with the Episcopal Church.
Allow me to speak personally on this issue. I grew up United Methodist. I love the Christian heritage of the Wesleys, Asbury, and too many great saints to name. I have been blessed in my adult life by the Walk to Emmaus movement. My favorite hymn is “And Can It Be.” In other words, I speak as someone who loves the contribution of United Methodism to the body of Christ as a whole.
In all seriousness: Please, United Methodists … don’t head down this course. It’s a direction that will take you away from the catholicity of the Church … and away from the “rebirth of orthodoxy” of which one of your most wonderful theologians, Dr. Thomas Oden, has written. (Full disclosure: Dr. Oden is on the board of the IRD. I was an admirer of his work years before I even knew about the IRD, however. And if you're wondering, no money from his book sales goes to the IRD.)
All Episcopal Church General Convention 2006 merchandise is now available for rock-bottom prices. The irony? The Convention’s theme was “Come and Grow.”
Too disturbing item #2:
United Methodists are looking more seriously at entering into “full communion” with the Episcopal Church.
Allow me to speak personally on this issue. I grew up United Methodist. I love the Christian heritage of the Wesleys, Asbury, and too many great saints to name. I have been blessed in my adult life by the Walk to Emmaus movement. My favorite hymn is “And Can It Be.” In other words, I speak as someone who loves the contribution of United Methodism to the body of Christ as a whole.
In all seriousness: Please, United Methodists … don’t head down this course. It’s a direction that will take you away from the catholicity of the Church … and away from the “rebirth of orthodoxy” of which one of your most wonderful theologians, Dr. Thomas Oden, has written. (Full disclosure: Dr. Oden is on the board of the IRD. I was an admirer of his work years before I even knew about the IRD, however. And if you're wondering, no money from his book sales goes to the IRD.)
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Passing the Blame Once Again
Perhaps the most astonishing thing about the House of Bishops' March 20 statement is its exaggerated portrait of both the Episcopal Church and the primates of the Anglican Communion. In its sheer one-sidedness in blaming the primates for current troubles in the Anglican Communion, it bears some similarities to—but goes far beyond—Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori's criticisms concerning the primates from a sermon she gave several years ago.
The Episcopal Church, from the bishops' point of view, apparently has committed no wrongs in its prior responses to the primates. We are told that the Episcopal Church has "responded in good faith" and expressed "love and respect" for the primates. They supposedly have complied with the primates' requests "happily" and "with joy."
The primates do not fare so well in the bishops' account. The bishops employ a repeated refrain: whatever they did to meet the primates' requests "was not accepted by the primates." This phrase—or its plural variant—appears three times in one paragraph. And in the next paragraph, the reader is told that the primates repeatedly have acted against their own stated principles by turning a blind eye to primates' and other bishops' border crossings.
So the bishops imply that the primates have been obstinate and unfaithful; the primates supposedly are not people of their word. The smaller group of primates and other bishops who have labored to help orthodox Anglicans within and without the Episcopal Church are critiqued more harshly: they have "caused great suffering and contributed immeasurably to [the bishops'] difficulties in solving our problems."
The bishops apparently believe that the Episcopal Church deserves our pity, or at least our sympathy, for their supposedly virtuous attempts to satisfy primates who evidently cannot be satisfied. Have these one-sided characterizations now finished? Not by a long shot, although they now become more subtle. The severity of their language is best seen by comparing it with the terminology it uses to describe the Anglican Communion: twice in the statement, the bishops call the Communion a "family of Churches."
In discussing the primates' "pastoral scheme," which the communiqué described as necessary to "facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation" within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, the bishops say that it "would be injurious to the Episcopal Church." Family members will not heal the Episcopal Church; they will harm it. It's instructive here that while the primates see the "patient" as being the entire Anglican Communion, the bishops are concerned primarily with the Episcopal Church.
More: The family members' (i.e., primates') action would "violate" the one member's (i.e., the Episcopal Church's) standards, including its "founding principles." The pastoral scheme would also "abandon" the family's traditions ("the generous orthodoxy of our Prayer Book tradition") and keep many family members (i.e., provinces) from fully participating in decision-making.
Still more: The pastoral scheme would enslave (“[sacrifice] the emancipation of”) the laity of the Episcopal Church, somehow keeping them from leadership positions. If that’s not bad enough, the bishops sound an alarm that the Anglican Communion might make become subject to “a distant and unaccountable group of prelates.” Since the whole movement within the Anglican Communion is toward greater accountability and interdependence among member provinces, the bishops apparently are thinking of accountability to the Episcopal Church. This stance would fit with their upholding “the local governance of the Church by its own people.” They are so concerned about losing autonomy that they raise the specter of the papacy as a warning of what the Anglican Communion could become—even though the Anglican Communion is light years away from Roman Catholicism in its structures.
Even more? You bet. The pastoral scheme encourages “one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break relationships when we find them difficult.” Far from encouraging unity in the church, the primates apparently fear that it will encourage more people to leave the Episcopal Church and could cause the denomination’s “permanent division.” The denial here is overwhelming. If the bishops think that the pastoral scheme itself will be the cause of many defections from the Episcopal Church, they’re seriously deceived.
And perhaps the biggest insult—even if it is implied rather than stated—comes from the last sentence of the statement. The bishops declare that they "now determinedly turn" to Christ's mission. Given the entire previous context, the unmistakable implication is that the primates have not been about God's business—or, at minimum, that preoccupation with the primates’ concerns has kept the Episcopal Church from following Christ’s mission.
Is this too much to take away from one sentence? Not if you look at other sections of the statement. The gospel, to the bishops, has as a central component a progressive take on human rights. They single out women, gays, and lesbians for special attention as "full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church." These are all groups with which the Episcopal Church has taken stands that are more progressive than corresponding stands taken by the majority of the other Anglican Communion provinces.
The charges are overblown, relentless, and reckless—even though they certainly testify to the true feelings of many bishops. And the importance of the statement goes far beyond the more obvious conclusions that the reader can draw. Yes, the bishops are calling for an autonomy that outweighs any interdependence with the rest of the Anglican Communion. Yes, the statement is dismissive of the primates, so much so that the bishops’ attempted reassurances that they want to remain in the Anglican Communion come across as insincere. But it's so much more as well.
It is, according to the bishops, an "affirmation both of our identity as a Church and our affection and commitment to the Anglican Communion." The bishops are not just speaking for themselves, but of the Episcopal Church’s very "identity." It's understandable if the reader concludes that there is very little affection or commitment here, save on the Episcopal Church’s own terms—and much less a sense of “identity” as part of either the Anglican Communion or the worldwide body of Christ. As such, this is possibly the saddest development to date in the ongoing Anglican Communion saga of the last several years, no matter how much “clarity” it provides.
The Episcopal Church, from the bishops' point of view, apparently has committed no wrongs in its prior responses to the primates. We are told that the Episcopal Church has "responded in good faith" and expressed "love and respect" for the primates. They supposedly have complied with the primates' requests "happily" and "with joy."
The primates do not fare so well in the bishops' account. The bishops employ a repeated refrain: whatever they did to meet the primates' requests "was not accepted by the primates." This phrase—or its plural variant—appears three times in one paragraph. And in the next paragraph, the reader is told that the primates repeatedly have acted against their own stated principles by turning a blind eye to primates' and other bishops' border crossings.
So the bishops imply that the primates have been obstinate and unfaithful; the primates supposedly are not people of their word. The smaller group of primates and other bishops who have labored to help orthodox Anglicans within and without the Episcopal Church are critiqued more harshly: they have "caused great suffering and contributed immeasurably to [the bishops'] difficulties in solving our problems."
The bishops apparently believe that the Episcopal Church deserves our pity, or at least our sympathy, for their supposedly virtuous attempts to satisfy primates who evidently cannot be satisfied. Have these one-sided characterizations now finished? Not by a long shot, although they now become more subtle. The severity of their language is best seen by comparing it with the terminology it uses to describe the Anglican Communion: twice in the statement, the bishops call the Communion a "family of Churches."
In discussing the primates' "pastoral scheme," which the communiqué described as necessary to "facilitate and encourage healing and reconciliation" within the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, the bishops say that it "would be injurious to the Episcopal Church." Family members will not heal the Episcopal Church; they will harm it. It's instructive here that while the primates see the "patient" as being the entire Anglican Communion, the bishops are concerned primarily with the Episcopal Church.
More: The family members' (i.e., primates') action would "violate" the one member's (i.e., the Episcopal Church's) standards, including its "founding principles." The pastoral scheme would also "abandon" the family's traditions ("the generous orthodoxy of our Prayer Book tradition") and keep many family members (i.e., provinces) from fully participating in decision-making.
Still more: The pastoral scheme would enslave (“[sacrifice] the emancipation of”) the laity of the Episcopal Church, somehow keeping them from leadership positions. If that’s not bad enough, the bishops sound an alarm that the Anglican Communion might make become subject to “a distant and unaccountable group of prelates.” Since the whole movement within the Anglican Communion is toward greater accountability and interdependence among member provinces, the bishops apparently are thinking of accountability to the Episcopal Church. This stance would fit with their upholding “the local governance of the Church by its own people.” They are so concerned about losing autonomy that they raise the specter of the papacy as a warning of what the Anglican Communion could become—even though the Anglican Communion is light years away from Roman Catholicism in its structures.
Even more? You bet. The pastoral scheme encourages “one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break relationships when we find them difficult.” Far from encouraging unity in the church, the primates apparently fear that it will encourage more people to leave the Episcopal Church and could cause the denomination’s “permanent division.” The denial here is overwhelming. If the bishops think that the pastoral scheme itself will be the cause of many defections from the Episcopal Church, they’re seriously deceived.
And perhaps the biggest insult—even if it is implied rather than stated—comes from the last sentence of the statement. The bishops declare that they "now determinedly turn" to Christ's mission. Given the entire previous context, the unmistakable implication is that the primates have not been about God's business—or, at minimum, that preoccupation with the primates’ concerns has kept the Episcopal Church from following Christ’s mission.
Is this too much to take away from one sentence? Not if you look at other sections of the statement. The gospel, to the bishops, has as a central component a progressive take on human rights. They single out women, gays, and lesbians for special attention as "full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church." These are all groups with which the Episcopal Church has taken stands that are more progressive than corresponding stands taken by the majority of the other Anglican Communion provinces.
The charges are overblown, relentless, and reckless—even though they certainly testify to the true feelings of many bishops. And the importance of the statement goes far beyond the more obvious conclusions that the reader can draw. Yes, the bishops are calling for an autonomy that outweighs any interdependence with the rest of the Anglican Communion. Yes, the statement is dismissive of the primates, so much so that the bishops’ attempted reassurances that they want to remain in the Anglican Communion come across as insincere. But it's so much more as well.
It is, according to the bishops, an "affirmation both of our identity as a Church and our affection and commitment to the Anglican Communion." The bishops are not just speaking for themselves, but of the Episcopal Church’s very "identity." It's understandable if the reader concludes that there is very little affection or commitment here, save on the Episcopal Church’s own terms—and much less a sense of “identity” as part of either the Anglican Communion or the worldwide body of Christ. As such, this is possibly the saddest development to date in the ongoing Anglican Communion saga of the last several years, no matter how much “clarity” it provides.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
The House of Bishops Pulls Out the Mission Card
The House of Bishops issued a statement late on Tuesday, March 20, regarding their spring 2007 meeting. It's remarkable for many reasons, including the fact that it not once but twice states the mission of the Episcopal Church in relation to the larger Anglican Communion. Here are the two statements:
· "[M]embership [in the Anglican Communion] … gives us the great privilege and unique opportunity of sharing in the family’s work of alleviating suffering in all parts of the world.”
· “We would … meet any decision to exclude us from gatherings of all Anglican Churches with great sorrow, but our commitment to our membership in the Anglican Communion as a way to participate in the alleviation of suffering and restoration of God’s creation would remain constant.”
There are two major points to note here. First, the language here is not the significant-but-standard terminology usually seen in such statements. “Reconciliation,” the most common shorthand term that the Episcopal Church uses in describing its mission, is not mentioned in these two instances—even though it certainly is implied here and appears once later in the statement. Instead, the bishops use language that ties into the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (“the alleviation of suffering”) using the framework provided by new Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (“restoration of God’s creation”).
Second, the Episcopal Church’s mission is contrasted with potential “exclu[sion] … from gatherings of all Anglican Churches.” The bishops, speaking "of our identity as a Church," essentially are claiming, “You may shun the Episcopal Church, but we won’t desert our work with you unless we have to do so.”
But there’s a catch here. The bishops are not committed to any Communion-wide standard of teaching—on human sexuality or any other issue. They are not committed to any semblance of theological unity; instead, they praise “free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God’s truth.” They are not committed to a covenant. They are not committed to the primates’ “pastoral scheme.”
No, the bishops instead commit the Episcopal Church to “the alleviation of suffering and restoration of God’s creation.” It’s on that one point that they claim that the Episcopal Church will not forsake the Anglican Communion.
And while it dovetails nicely with the current raision d'etre of the Episcopal Church as a whole, that point is also a very political one. It reminds the Anglican Communion of the money that the Episcopal Church pours into the worldwide body—particularly through relief and development work. The New York Times published a front-page article on the Episcopal Church's funding of the Anglican Communion on the same day as the bishops issued their statement. The article contained this statement: "Episcopalians give tens of millions ... each year to support aid and development programs in the Communion's poorer provinces."
In other words, the one point on which the bishops claim to commit to the Anglican Communion is also the one through which the Episcopal Church could have the most influence on other provinces. It's a progressive social justice mission that the bishops believe constitutes “the essence of Christ’s own mission in the world.” Elsewhere in the document, they define the Gospel in human-rights-type terminology. Singled out for special mention as "full and equal participants in the life of Christ's church" are women, gays, and lesbians.
So once again, mission—and a particularly progressive social justice mission at that—is proposed as a (and the only) unifying factor among Anglicans. Once again, however, that card comes up short.
The primates of the Anglican Communion made several requests of the House of Bishops in their February 19 communique. None of them involved a commitment to "alleviating suffering"—as praiseworthy of a goal as that may be. Instead, the primates called the Episcopal Church to an "unequivocal," wholehearted repentance of its actions that have so "damaged" the Anglican Communion. The House of Bishops says that it "now determinedly turn[s]" to the Episcopal Church's mission, but only a "[determined] turn" in the sense of repentance will heal the Anglican Communion.
· "[M]embership [in the Anglican Communion] … gives us the great privilege and unique opportunity of sharing in the family’s work of alleviating suffering in all parts of the world.”
· “We would … meet any decision to exclude us from gatherings of all Anglican Churches with great sorrow, but our commitment to our membership in the Anglican Communion as a way to participate in the alleviation of suffering and restoration of God’s creation would remain constant.”
There are two major points to note here. First, the language here is not the significant-but-standard terminology usually seen in such statements. “Reconciliation,” the most common shorthand term that the Episcopal Church uses in describing its mission, is not mentioned in these two instances—even though it certainly is implied here and appears once later in the statement. Instead, the bishops use language that ties into the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals (“the alleviation of suffering”) using the framework provided by new Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori (“restoration of God’s creation”).
Second, the Episcopal Church’s mission is contrasted with potential “exclu[sion] … from gatherings of all Anglican Churches.” The bishops, speaking "of our identity as a Church," essentially are claiming, “You may shun the Episcopal Church, but we won’t desert our work with you unless we have to do so.”
But there’s a catch here. The bishops are not committed to any Communion-wide standard of teaching—on human sexuality or any other issue. They are not committed to any semblance of theological unity; instead, they praise “free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God’s truth.” They are not committed to a covenant. They are not committed to the primates’ “pastoral scheme.”
No, the bishops instead commit the Episcopal Church to “the alleviation of suffering and restoration of God’s creation.” It’s on that one point that they claim that the Episcopal Church will not forsake the Anglican Communion.
And while it dovetails nicely with the current raision d'etre of the Episcopal Church as a whole, that point is also a very political one. It reminds the Anglican Communion of the money that the Episcopal Church pours into the worldwide body—particularly through relief and development work. The New York Times published a front-page article on the Episcopal Church's funding of the Anglican Communion on the same day as the bishops issued their statement. The article contained this statement: "Episcopalians give tens of millions ... each year to support aid and development programs in the Communion's poorer provinces."
In other words, the one point on which the bishops claim to commit to the Anglican Communion is also the one through which the Episcopal Church could have the most influence on other provinces. It's a progressive social justice mission that the bishops believe constitutes “the essence of Christ’s own mission in the world.” Elsewhere in the document, they define the Gospel in human-rights-type terminology. Singled out for special mention as "full and equal participants in the life of Christ's church" are women, gays, and lesbians.
So once again, mission—and a particularly progressive social justice mission at that—is proposed as a (and the only) unifying factor among Anglicans. Once again, however, that card comes up short.
The primates of the Anglican Communion made several requests of the House of Bishops in their February 19 communique. None of them involved a commitment to "alleviating suffering"—as praiseworthy of a goal as that may be. Instead, the primates called the Episcopal Church to an "unequivocal," wholehearted repentance of its actions that have so "damaged" the Anglican Communion. The House of Bishops says that it "now determinedly turn[s]" to the Episcopal Church's mission, but only a "[determined] turn" in the sense of repentance will heal the Anglican Communion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)