Category Archives: the episcopal church

Blindness

Posted on by

Someone wrote in another blog, commenting on The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops resolutions this past week:

“We are witnessing the decline and fall of Christianity in Western culture…”

I don’t buy this. First of all, it sounds as if the presumption is that God will not be able to cause the Church to survive in Western culture. Sure He can, and will.
We may no longer have our privileged position of state-sanction (whether explicit or implicit), but Christianity will survive and flourish. Flourish, because I think what will happen is that Christianity will become something that people participate in because they truly believe it and desire to do so, not because it is culturally expected or demanded. This will give us a much stronger Church, although the membership numbers will probably be less. It will also give us a far less culturally determined Church – less influence from both the political and social left and right.
This is God’s Church, and He will do what He will do. We are not in control of it nor can we determine its outcome. Our House of Bishops will be shown to have acted correctly or incorrectly, as will our Church and our whole Communion, in time. IN TIME. God’s time is not ours, and his timing is not our timing. Why do we so worry and think that we humans are God’s only means of defense?
An additional observation: We are blind if we think that the conservatives are any less influenced by our culture than are the liberals. We both are, and we both reflect the negative and positive aspects of the political and social positions of left and right.
To say that the conservatives or liberals are more or less influenced by our culture positivity or negatively simply shows the difference of what we choose to focus on. Hyper-individualism and consumerism of the right, or political-correctness and hyper-inclusion of the left.

Episcopal Election declared void

Posted on by

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori has declared “null and void” the election of the Very Rev. Mark Lawrence to be the 14th bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of South Carolina. (Episcopal News Service)


Read the entire article from ENS.
Statement from the Diocese of South Carolina
The way this has transpired is plainly and simply wrong. If New Hampshire can choose a priest to be bishop whose election has prompted the presenting troubles within the Anglican Communion, after nearly ever other Christian entity asked that it not be done, then the people of South Carlina can elect the bishop of their choice. I supported the prerogative of the people of New Hampshire to elect who they felt God called them to elect. I support the prerogative of the people of South Carolina to elect the person they believe God is calling them to elect.
Many people on the left said that his election should not be consented to because of statements he has made that suggest he may – let me say this again, may – view favorably his diocese aligning itself with groups that seek to remove themselves from The Episcopal Church. Fr. Lawrence has publicly stated that he will remain loyal to TEC, despite that certain groups do not believe him.
What makes this particularly grievous is that the denial of consent may be a result of technicalities. These are not the times when the denial of consent is based on only a couple lacking votes that could be the result of sending the consents electronically, without a “signature,” rather than sending paper consents with a signature of ink sent through the U.S. Mail. “Several dioceses, both on and off American soil, thought that electronic permission was sufficient as had been their past accepted practice.” (Statement from the Diocese of South Carolina)
Regardless of where I may stand on the various issues we are fighting over, I cannot support what I know is gleeful rejoicing in some quarters. Fr. Lawrence pledged to remain loyal to The Episcopal Church. Why should we not take him at his word? If he is lying and if he attempts to pull South Carolina out of TEC, a presentment can be made against him.
My hope is that the people of South Carolina will elect him, again.

Meanness

Posted on by

Mark Harris on his blog, Preludium, reflects a bit more on General Convention ’06. He comments on the aftermath of the votes by the House of Deputies and the House of Bishops on resolution B033 – the last ditch statement concerning the Windsor Report. It is worth reading: here.
The backdrop for his comments is Matt. 5:37 – let your “yes” be “yes” and your “no,” no. He comments on the two groups of bishops who for the most part repudiated the passed resolution as soon as voting was completed. One group he refered to as the disassociating bishops and the other group as the dissenter bishops.
This paragraph struck me:
“Disassociating is a meanness, the meanness of the embarrassed or the loser. But the greatest of these acts of meanness is the meanness of the ones who hoped for the worse in order to prove that they are the best. Disassociation, as practiced by dissemblers, is merely a way to further a cause that can’t carry its own weight in a democratic fashion.”
Perhaps, it is endemic within Anglicanism to resist dogmatic “yes’s” and/or dogmatic “no’s.” Perhaps, these dissenters and disassociationists are attempting to live into more fully Matthew’s command, even if by using illegitimate or spurious methods. Perhaps.

It matters not…

Posted on by

I finally started using Feedblitz in earnest. It is a wonderful way of keeping track of favorite blogs in one quick and easy shot. I was reading a few posts from Brad Drell’s blog, one of them being a news story from the Bay Area’s Episcopalian LGBT organization Oasis California President Rev. John Kirkley, commenting on the last minute resolution B033 that passed both houses of convention.
“Once again, gay and lesbian Christians were sacrificed for the “sake of the Communion.” Once again we see that no matter how great a sacrifice gay and lesbians make, we can never satisfy the ultra-conservatives who want to lead their own church.”
Well, of course not. For the more extreme there can be no compromise at all. This is where I fear the Primate of Nigeria, Archbishop Peter Akinola, falls. If avowed gay people are part of a church and they are accepted, then that church is apostate, period. Only if the “former-gay” people, or ex-gays, are involved in a healing ministry (reparative therapy and all that) and refuse to acknowledge that they may be intrinsically homosexual and refrain from any form of same-gender relationships can they be fully welcomed and fully received into the life of that church. Even then, there are those who have their doubts.
So, stop being shocked that the more extreme position held by even some pseudo-conservative Anglicans is that there can be no compromise, because if homosexuals do not repent of their sinful behavior and turn to God, they are of the devil and cannot be accepted into the Church. And if anyone wonders, I have heard these kinds of statements over and over again.
This legislation, B033, from General Convention is not of that mindset, however. Frankly, neither are a good many Episcopalians or Anglicans who are of the “conservative” side of our churches. The spin from all sides and the knee-jerk reactions from some people and groups suggests to me that it matters not what anyone does to try to forge a common way forward. Some will never accept such a way forward.

We must humble ourselves!

Posted on by

The 75th General Convention of The Episcopal Church in the United States comes to an end today, or at least is scheduled to end. Today we will see whether we can deal with the Windsor Report in ways very un-American – whether we can actually humble ourselves just a bit.
I have never used this phrase before because I do not engage in Identity Politics, but now I will for a reason: “As a gay man” all that happens at General Convention is not all about me or my “tribe.” My identity as a gay man is not paramount, but as a Christian (perhaps I should say “follower of Jesus” because self-identifying as a Christian is an identity in and of itself, I know). As a Christian my call is to a life of self-denial, to love others more than myself, to even love my enemy. To find life, I am to die to this life. If I honestly love my enemy, how can I do that which only causes them harm or hurt, regardless of whether they want to harm or hurt me? What is the example of Jesus on the cross, after all? This doesn’t mean I have to accept my opponents’ interpretation of Scripture, their form of piety, or what they want to accomplish. I can be a strong advocate of my position, but when I see my brother or sister hurt and distressed by my actions or words when they specifically ask me to slow down, wait a bit, or allow their voice to be heard, how as a follower of Jesus can I say, “NO?” It is only in our hyper-individualized, arrogant American way can we simply say to world Anglicanism – those who agree with me (us) and those who don’t – “screw you,” I’m or we’re going to do what we want regardless of how it effects you.
So, we wait two years until Lambeth. So we agree to withhold the election of another gay bishop, so we wait to conduct blessings of same-gender unions, so we express our profound regret that what we did has caused such division, harm, and dismay among the vast majority of Anglicans and Christians worldwide. We humble ourselves and say we may have been wrong in how we did it, and we could be wrong in what we actually did. I can advocate for my position, but my position is not what is most important – loving my brother and sister is regardless of how they respond to me. When concepts of justice conflict with concepts of acting in love towards others, we have a profound misunderstanding of both and I believe completely miss the Gospel imperative of love and justice and how they work hand-in-hand. “As a gay man,” I’ve always been vilified, never had the opportunity of blessing, so what is two years if in those two years many people around the world may understand me a little better, my perspective, or my interpretation of Scripture, and perhaps come to see things the way I do, or at least we can come to a compromise. For the sake of crucified Jesus, I’m willing to wait. If I simply want to force others to do want I want them to do, or the hell with them, then I am not acting as a Christian, but I am certainly engaging in Identity Politics. I am certainly enslaved to the “Tyranny of NOW.”
We have been in a limited way discussed this issue for thirty years in this Church. The clergy have done a terrible job in bringing the discussion to most parishioners. What we did three years ago has forced the issue and forced the conversation called for by Lambeth Resolution 1.10.3, so let us continue in a way that will include as many people around the world as we can. I know what it is to be excluded, and I don’t want to do to others what I have experienced myself! Pass the Commissions recommendations for Windsor as a beginning point. If in three years our opponents do not accept the conversation or do not listen, then we have gone the extra mile and we continue on as we feel we should – but we tried, again.
Below I go into this whole issue of Identity Politics a little more deeply.

Continue reading →

Identity Politics

Posted on by

I’ve been thinking about the whole issue of Identity Politics. It is well established within society in general, academia in particular, and has become apparent within our Church, too.
Tomorrow, I will post some thoughts on this issue. I have never bought into identity political theory, but I will write from my own experience and perspective. It is too late this night to think straight.

When will it end?

Posted on by

Resolution A161 failed in the House of Deputies. The motion to reconsider failed.
We have lost our ability to understand what it means to be catholic. In our arrogant and profoundly self-centered American way, we say to perhaps the majority of Christianity, and particularly world Anglicanism – screw you!
My hope and prayer is that something will come forward that will allow us to move forward as Christians, not as ideologues pushing our nice little agendas. But, we Americans have a very difficult time learning anything that is contrary to what we WANT to believe.

How do we understand the Gospel?

Posted on by

Much of what we see going on at General Convention and within our Church in general, is the clash of various “cultures” all claiming “The Gospel.”
What I see as a glory of Anglicanism is a recognition that various concepts of the Gospel come together to give us a more balanced and clearer view of its fullness. It is only when we lay claim to one form and become fundamentalist concerning our favorite “pet gospel” that irreconcilable differences and conflict have the day.
The Modernist inspired ideas of the “Social Gospel” taken up with full force by the mainline denominations during the 60’s and 70’s (and also reflected in the Liberation Theology initiated by South American Roman Catholics) still remains a powerful force in the Episcopal Church. While Modernism as a worldview/system has been waning for many years now, the primary undercurrent of general social understanding by those in power (the 60’s Baby-Boomer generation) within this Church and many of our national institutions remain. The gospel has a primary focus on social justice and righting the wrongs of past generations with relation to marginalized peoples.
There is a gospel that has arisen over the last twenty years or so that takes its cue from the “self-esteem” pedagogies of academic educational theory. It might be described as the “Gospel of Affirmation.” God is love, and all God wants to do is love us and enable us to love God’s self and one another. God affirms us in our personhood and completely accepts us for who, what, and where we are. God esteems us as individual beings, and because God is all love we are all brought into God’s loving embrace. This is probably a very inadequate description of this idea of the truths held within the Gospel as perceived by this group of people.
Then, there is what might be considered the long standing or traditional ideas of the Gospel of Christ, and at the moment no real term comes to mind to describe this perception of the Gospel. It might be termed the “Gospel of Transformation,” although that may be different from this form. Different variations of this exist within the Evangelical side of the Church up through the Anglo-Catholic side of Anglicanism. Within this gospel are the notions held within the Creeds fully accepted and believed. There is the assertion that God revealed Himself through the prophets, through Holy Scripture, and most poignantly through His incarnation in Jesus. It is in the life, death, and resurrection (actual, historical events) of Jesus that we find our fullness as human beings. We are transformed from who we were as blind, lost, and sinful humans and made new by the power of the Holy Spirit into the fullness of God through Jesus the Christ.
There is what I term the “Liberal Gospel,” although that is an absolutely inadequate term. It seems to me to be a rational extension of the Social Gospel. This form of the gospel might well be summed up in the teachings of Bishop Spong. Most of the gospel as seen is Scripture is metaphor and is absolutely anthropocentric. It deals with how we perceive and interact with the world around us and how we can move ever forward to achieving ideas of utopia.
Of course, various other “gospels” are out there, and I know what I have described above is quite inadequate. But, the reality is that we have competing ideas of what the “Gospel of Christ” really means as we live out our lives on this big, blue ball. As we align ourselves to one or another gospel, this determines where we place out emphasis in terms of legislation, piety, church policy, and the like.
My contention is that there are elements of truth in all the above. God does accept us where we are. God does not leave us where we are found, however, but transforms us as we yield our lives to His perfect will. In that transformation our objectives, our desires, and the focus of our lives are changed as we are enable to see the hurt and desperation of so many. As we are changed and renewed, we are enabled to love – God and one another – in new ways which compels us to fight for justice and the welfare of all people.
In my humble opinion, these gospels are not in competition. We force the competition because we are humans who know in part and see in part. My prayer is that as we seek God, we will be changed by God and made into new creations that are able to fulfill the two Great Comments of Jesus – Love God with our entire being and love our neighbor as ourselves.

Where are we going, now?

Posted on by

Some fourteen years ago, I began attending an Episcopal Church in Akron, OH. I just wanted to see what a sacramental and liturgical church was like since I had become fairly disillusioned with the tradition I had been a part of.
Over time, I discovered this thing called Anglicanism. A wonderful thing, I believed, because unlike American Protestantism this church seemed to stay together despite the arguments, the infighting, and the differences of all kinds. In my humble opinion, this brought an overall balance in the functioning of the whole church.
This is my first General Convention. I am truly impressed with the level of sophistication and decorum of the committee hearings, the open hearings, and the debate in the various Houses. I am inspired by it all.
Even so, during these past fourteen years I have always had this strange sense that I don’t know where I fit within this church. That was okay when there seemed to be the understanding that we were all in this together, despite how one group or another was actually treated (and some groups from both sides are treated very poorly). If one part of this church decides to leave, then how am I to understand my place in our church, let alone within the Communion? It seems, perhaps, I will be even less sure of my place. I am glad I was ordained before this convention.
Then again, as one who knows I am just passing through this brief period of time called life, why should it really matter if I feel comfortable or secure or not? I suspect that the better sense should be that I learn to be content in all things, as Paul suggests in describing the place he found by yielding completely to the will of God.
The Anglican ethos will continue on, despite what this church decides to do or not to do. We all like to say Anglicanism is ours – is mine! – but it isn’t. I’m not disillusioned with Anglicanism, just with a lot of people who call themselves Anglicans. Anglicanism, if it is truly a legitimate expression of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, is God’s. I can live within that ethos and it really doesn’t matter whether I feel I have a nice, comfy nock or not. Frankly, I will probably be much better off in the long run if I have to continue to seek and fight to understand what the heck God is up to!