The word has come from Lambeth Palace that Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire will not receive an invitation to the Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops this summer. I’m not going to say whether I think this is a good or bad thing, because I just don’t know. Part of me says bad, part of me says it is a necessary although regrettable decision that good will come out of. I just don’t know. It is all a regrettable and unfortunate mess, regardless.
Here is the report offered by those of the U.S. House of Bishops who were in conversation with the Lambeth Conference officials regarding Gene’s participation.
Here is Gene Robinson’s response, which I think is a very gracious and responsible response!
Here is the Episcopal News Service announcement.

I was reading Mark Harris’ blog Preludium and his post about the following paragraph from Kant. He “hat-tipped” The Lead over at Episcopal Cafe. This could be pertinent to the Archbishop of Canterbury’s announcement for the “Windsor Continuation Group.” So, I give credit to both these blogs for the following quote from Emmanuel Kant:
Immanuel Kant (1704-1824) on Religious Covenants. From “What is Enlightenment?” (l784)

“But should not a society of clergymen, for example an ecclesiastical synod or a venerable presbytery (as the Dutch call it), be entitled to commit itself by oath to a certain unalterable set of doctrines, in order to secure for a time a constant guardianship over each of its members, and through them over the people? I reply that this is quite impossible. A contract of this kind, concluded with a view to preventing all further enlightenment of mankind for ever, is absolutely null and void, even it is is ratified by the supreme power, by Imperial Diets and the most solemn peace treaties. One age cannot enter into an alliance on oath to put the next age in a position where it would be impossible for it to extend and correct its knowledge, particularly on such important matters, or to make any progress whatsoever in enlightenment. This would be a crime against human nature, whose original destiny lies precisely in such progress. Later generations are thus perfectly entitled to dismiss these agreements as unauthorized and criminal.”

Hat tip Fred Quinn and Prof. Frank M. Turner, John Hay Whitney Professor of History
Director, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University.

Well, +Rowan will speak has spoken before the Church of England’s General Synod, today. I’m curious to see what he says and the reaction.
The text of +Rowan’s address can be found here.
There is an underlying problem we face within Anglicanism – certain groups of people don’t want their preconceived notions or beliefs challenged, they want to believe what they want to think supports their agenda or theo-ideology. +Rowan presents a paper about the necessity of secular British governmental structures making provision for communities of faith and their ability to order themselves and maintain their beliefs without State interference – for Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.
There results wild misinterpretations of +Rowan’s comments in the lecture and interview, perpetuated by a virulent tabloid press and within the particular battles going on right now within British society. Rather than good Anglicans making sure the public understood the true intent of +Rowan with regard to a much-needed debate in ENGLAND, many Anglicans of a certain sort jumped on the secular-press bandwagon and excoriated the ABC. They aid and abed the opposition!
This is a real problem I’ve witnessed over my years within TEC and Anglicanism. I grew up in the American-Evangelical tradition in the U.S. and am thankful for it. When I became Anglican I noticed so many similarities with Anglican-Evangelicalism, yet realized early on that they were not the same thing. Too many American-Evangelicals migrated to Anglican-Evangelical parishes and were not instructed that there are definite differences between the two faith traditions. For instance, TEC and Anglican Provinces are Episcopal/Catholic in their structure – we are a Church of bishops and not “Congregational,” like most American-Evangelical churches. This has implications for every bit of our actions and the living out of the faith within this Church. This misunderstanding by former American-Evangelicals of Anglican-Evangelicalism is so apparent here on this blog. Likewise, within Anglican-Evangelicalism there is acceptance of and respect for the Anglican tradition of difference/comprehensiveness in theological perspective and Biblical interpretation, which is rarely present in present-day American-Evangelicalism (particularly of the politicized, culture-wars crowd).
So, what we have now is the infection of Anglican-Evangelicalism with the worst of politicized American-Evangelicalism (terribly supplanting the very good aspects of that tradition). One characteristic of the politicized American-Evangelicalism is the insistence that their particular theo-ideology must prevail because it is the only Truth of God (no room for any other possible interpretations or applications), therefore the end justifies the means and they cannot listen to “reason” because it is of the world. +Rowan writes, seculars misunderstand, but because the misunderstanding plays to the game-plan of the politicized group, they too run with it and make their own, regardless of whether the understanding is wrong, thus spreading misinformation or whatnot. This group of people does not want the truth, because it doesn’t fit with their agenda. This is harsh, I know, but it is what I see happening all too often these days and within our current troubles. They have become just like too many pseudo-liberals within the Church, only on the opposite side of the spectrum.
It is a sad day for the cause of Christ when ideology takes the place of humility and relationship – when people would rather believe and perpetuate misunderstanding or even a lie than accept the truth. They would rather condemn +Rowan and perpetuate the wrong interpretation than correct the misunderstanding.

Again, read his lecture. The Archbishop of Canterbury is absolutely right! If, that is, you read his lecture and don’t depend on the pronouncements of people who haven’t read it and only want to twist his remarks to further their own ideological determination! This is vital to religious-conservatism in particular as the secular State/Courts take upon themselves the role of sole arbiter of intent and belief.
His argument is an argument that we have to have both in the U.K. and the U.S. – really in the Western world all together.
Another quote:

“I have argued recently in a discussion of the moral background to legislation about incitement to religious hatred that any crime involving religious offence has to be thought about in terms of its tendency to create or reinforce a position in which a religious person or group could be gravely disadvantaged in regard to access to speaking in public in their own right: offence needs to be connected to issues of power and status, so that a powerful individual or group making derogatory or defamatory statements about a disadvantaged minority might be thought to be increasing that disadvantage. The point I am making here is similar. If the law of the land takes no account of what might be for certain agents a proper rationale for behaviour – for protest against certain unforeseen professional requirements, for instance, which would compromise religious discipline or belief – it fails in a significant way to communicate with someone involved in the legal process (or indeed to receive their communication), and so, on at least one kind of legal theory (expounded recently, for example, by R.A. Duff), fails in one of its purposes.”

Well, as anyone who follows the goings on within the Anglican Communion, Britain as the home of the mother-Church, and the Archbishop of Canterbury might know, +Rowan has gotten himself, his Church, and his country into another tizzy over a very academic lecture he gave during a symposium with the Royal Courts of Justice on “Islam and British Law,” or something like that. I wonder whether he can comprehend the difference of role between an academic and the very public Archbishop of Canterbury? I don’t think he gets that, and it is causing him and his Church a lot of trouble.
Update: Here is a paragraph with reference to my final sentences above from Comment piece from Madeleine Bunting of the Guardian (UK):

So why does Williams do it? He’s not naive… What this is about is stubbornness. What his staff know full well is that he simply is not prepared to collude any more than he has to in a type of public debate that he regards as simplistic and sloganised. He is a subtle and sophisticated thinker, and sees no reason why he can’t bring those qualities to public life. Why should he speak any differently in public to how he does in an Oxbridge theology seminar?
Why, oh why indeed. There are so many answers to that question. Because you would have avoided an already demoralised Church of England being publicly humiliated. Because this speech will be a byword for the failures of liberal Anglicanism for decades. Because it’s a terrible preface to the Anglican communion’s Lambeth conference this summer. Because you now have a whole new batch of incensed critics. Because … Yet despite all that, there is something mad and admirable here.
He was honouring his audience last night – many of whom were lawyers and academics – by engaging them in a complex exploratory argument. Here is a fine mind at work: what sort of anti-intellectual populism assumes we should be able to easily understand everything he says? It’s a bad day when all our public figures are trapped in a parade of simplistic, anodyne platitudes: our politics have reached that degree of non-speak, and bishops are close behind them. What Williams did was defy all media convention – it was a rebellion against the spin and public relations mediation of public life; buried in all the frustration, there has to be a measure of awe for someone so recklessly prepared to buck the system and continue to be what he is – a big mind and a big heart but without a political bone in his body.

Frankly, though, this all does reveal the fear of Islam and a myopic and limited understanding of it, the failure of multi-culturalism and identity-politics, and the very real need to bring these vitally important issues into the public domain – both in Britain and North America. The problem is that too many people in the common domain don’t want a rational public engagement due to fear, disinterest, ignorance, ideology or some such thing – what they want is blood (or the rhetorical equivalent).
He may well not survive this one. We have to understand that the cultural (what is a strong enough word?) conflagrations the British people are going through right now concerning “what does it mean to be British” and radical-Islam within their boarders sets the scene for consternation and the hysterics being reported in their news outlets.
Here is an editorial from the Times that should be read.
Before we Americans do what we do best – misunderstand what is really going on because we decide to listen to tabloid/sound-bite accounts of things and jumping to illinformed conclusions rather than taking the time to adequately familiarize ourselves in order to be rational in our thoughts and pronouncements (ok, I’m off my soapbox) – we need to go back to the sources and read what the people (in this case the ABC) actually said and what he intended by his statements!
Here is the statement of clarification from the Archbishop’s office.

Here is the text of his lecture.
Here is his opening paragraph:

“The title of this series of lectures signals the existence of what is very widely felt to be a growing challenge in our society – that is, the presence of communities which, while no less ‘law-abiding’ than the rest of the population, relate to something other than the British legal system alone. But, as I hope to suggest, the issues that arise around what level of public or legal recognition, if any, might be allowed to the legal provisions of a religious group, are not peculiar to Islam: we might recall that, while the law of the Church of England is the law of the land, its daily operation is in the hands of authorities to whom considerable independence is granted. And beyond the specific issues that arise in relation to the practicalities of recognition or delegation, there are large questions in the background about what we understand by and expect from the law, questions that are more sharply focused than ever in a largely secular social environment. I shall therefore be concentrating on certain issues around Islamic law to begin with, in order to open up some of these wider matters.”

Here is the transcript of his BBC Radio4 interview that started all the trouble.
Update: You know, as I read through his lecture, I’m continually brought back to the thought that we fail in this country to engage intellectually with most things. We don’t know how to adroitly argue our beliefs convincingly, but would rather simply shout sound-bites. The anti-intellectualism that has spread through every level of our society will be and is our downfall and opens us to easy manipulation. His lecture, so far, is balanced, rational, and dealing with real problems and failures and misunderstandings. We, however, don’t want to hear such things. We would rather remain in our perceptive ignorance and hate… hate that which we don’t understand and make very little effort, if any, to understand. Is it now a cultural proclivity that we simply want to be ignorant because it is just “easier?” Whatever happened to intellectual rigor? Whatever happened to the pursuit of knowledge? Whatever happened to thinking through a problem and understanding one’s opponents’ arguments and concerns well enough to argue their cause outright? We want to deny that as a society we are woefully illprepared intellectually to deal with so many things – poll after poll, achievement test after achievement test proves this.

There has been lots of stuff going back-and-forth over the last few days concerning the mess in the Diocese of San Joaquin. You can find all manner of verbiage on the normal and various websites (Titusonenine, Father Jake Stops the World, Preludium, Standfirm, Episcopal Cafe, etc.). I will still contend that Fr. Dan Martins of Confessions of a Carioca presents the “best” analysis. I think this because:
1. He was a member of the San Jaoquine Standing Committee up until he relocated to the Diocese of Northern Indiana. He knows the people, what they think, how they act.
2. He worked to avoid the very thing that happened – an attempt to pull the diocese out of the Episcopal Church and align with the Province of the Southern Cone.
3. He is all about following the process – adhering to the Constitution and Canons of TEC.
This is a problem I have with many who might call themselves “liberals” or “progressives” – feelings trump the Rule of Law (not legalism, but due process!). I encounter this all the time in my own conversations. “Well, you might be right that this or that is provided for in the Canons, but…” There is no , “but…”, IMHO. If we really want to solve this, really solve it and not just force our own viewpoints or dogma or ideology upon the rest of the Church or Communion, then we do have to follow due process. What we are left with otherwise is simply chaos. This is a triumph of the very wrong cultural proclivities of “hyper-individualism” and “identity-politics” of this country. Without due process and the adherence to established order, we are lost!
So many like to condemn the conservatives in that they are not patient enough. Well, liberals, neither are you. Two wrongs don’t make a right, and yes, we do have time to let the process complete itself. We really, really do.

A good pastoral letter from a bishop within the Diocese of Lichfield (England). Read it here.
A quote:

If as a church our overriding priority, in worship and PCC meetings and wherever Anglicans come together, is who Jesus is and what Jesus is asking of us today, we will find these secondary issues look after themselves – because what unites us will then be far greater than what divides us. The churches that are growing – irrespective of church tradition or social background – are those where this happens. The churches that are declining are those where Jesus has somehow slipped quietly off the agenda and been replaced by the latest crisis or issues to do with institutional maintenance. No wonder that puts people off.

Via: Titusonenine – read the comments to Kendall’s post to see what the “reasserter” side of our troubles think. Our attitudes are so messed up, and for at least some of the commenters of the post at Titus19 they have not ears to hear. The bishop calls us back to Christ-centeredness and right focus, but I fear too many of us would rather stick to the divisive issues that, like Peter, take our focus away from where it should really be.

The Remain Episcopal group of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin held a meeting (Moving Forward, Welcoming All: the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin) this past week to try to plot out the future events necessary to reconstitute that diocese after its former bishop and Convention voted to affiliate with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone (the southern portion of South America). Remain Episcopal is made up of members of that diocese who have been determined to resist their former bishop’s and diocesan leaders’ moves to leave The Episcopal Church because of differences over theological positions and social issues. They have withstood lots of criticism, accusations, and rejection by their own diocese, just like conservatives have in liberal dioceses (and I personally witnessed the literal spiting of venomous condemnations by a liberal diocesan official concerning conservatives in my own diocese of canonical residence – I was shocked and very discouraged).
So, right before that +Katherine, our Presiding Bishop, sent letters to all eight members of the Diocese of San Joaquin Standing Committee giving notice that she no longer recognizes them as the Standing Committee. Well, no canon gives her the authority to do such a thing, as other bloggers have commented on (see below).
Episcopal News Service report of +Katherine’s decision and letter
This doesn’t seem to be going over very well, even among the traditionally liberal bloggers that have been unsympathetic to the recent events in San Joaquin and its bishop, let alone the whole “reasserter” efforts over the last six years.
Fr. Jake’s comments on +Katherine’s actions
Mark Harris (Executive Council member, commenting on Province VIII’s dismissal of one of its representatives – form San Joaquin – to the Executive Council)
Finally, Dan Martins’ blogs about all this and the tremendous opportunity +Katherine has squandered to build momentum for reconciliation. A quote from his post:

This is a monumental gaffe on her part. Unless, that is, she isn’t really interested in inclusion or reconciliation, but only ideological victory for her side, in which case a scorched earth “take no prisoners” policy is the way to go.
The rapid disintegration of due process in “this Church” should be worrisome to those of every ideological and theological stripe. More on that later.

To be honest, I am worried! Accusations fly against “conservatives” who seem to flaunt Canon Law, and it seems that “liberals” may be attempting to do the same thing. God help us – if we stop being a people under the Rule of Law, we simply devolve into chaos and anarchism.
Considering my last post and what I have witnessed among too many pseudo-liberals/pseudo-conservatives I have encountered in academe and in “this Church,” I hope and pray that those who really do want nothing more than ideological victory (conservatives and liberals alike) do not win the day. This has got to stop!
I don’t care about the “winning” of my theological or ideological position. I care about being what Christ calls us to be, and that is found in The Fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-23), the two Great Commandments of Jesus (Mt 22:35-40) and the “Golden Rule” (Mt 7:12), and finally Paul’s definition of LOVE found in I Corinthians 13:4-7. This is what I want to win so that a world desperate for hope, peace, and reconciliation will actually see something worthwhile in us to consider. They certainly don’t now – the way we’ve been acting – everyone one of us. Do we really think the world looks upon us and thinks we are good or honroable? Really?
Yes, theological and ideological “positions” do have consequences, but Anglicanism has always allowed for diversity and a wide spectrum of opinion to exist. I have witnessed too many people working against traditional Anglican comprehensiveness in the past – pseudo-liberals who want nothing more than to rid “this Church” of “those ignorant fundamentalists” – and in the present – pseudo-conservatives who declare a person a heretic simply because they call for a reconsideration of the way the Church deals with homosexuals. A pox on all their houses! Whitewashed hypocrites, all of them! Do you get the idea that I’m a little exorcised about all this? Of course, how easy is it for me to say, “I’m right and all you people better get your act together according to what I think should be!” Hypocrite, me.
Why do we so like to declare that the other side has compromised with the “prevailing culture” and not see that we have done the very same thing? When has “winning” become of utmost importance? When has the end come to justify the means?

I’ve studied and worked within “liberal” environs for the last 28 years – as a student and employee of public universities and as a member of the Episcopal Church. As one who even while in high school described himself as a “progressive-conservative” without feeling any contradiction in the term (I was a political and international-affairs geek in high school), I have seen and been shocked by the gleeful vindictiveness expressed by people both conservative and liberal when their opponents have taken a tumble.
I have to be honest when I say that I’ve experienced and witnessed the most extreme forms of vindictiveness and bitterness coming from those who describe themselves as “liberals.” I don’t know why, considering that within the liberal framework they should be most tolerant and most concerned for the welfare of people of all perspectives. After all, a primary tenant of liberalism is that all have a place at the table and all perspectives are given their day in the sun. Well, that is “officially” what liberals are supposed to believe and how they are supposed to behave. The reality is something different – as it is with conservatives, too.
We should produce a new video series with titles like: “Liberals Gone Wild” and “Conservatives Gone Wild” and perhaps even “Moderates Gone Missing.” IDK
At least most conservatives make no bones about being inclusive of all ideas or theories or ideologies or theologies or whatever else may be out there – or even being nice about it all. There is no pretense that everything or everyone is absolutely equal, whatever one thinks about that.
I’m watching some of the “liberal” reactions within the Episcopal Church right now over the Diocese of San Joaquin and its bishop as we suffer through the aftermath of their vote to leave the Episcopal Church because of their accusation of “liberal” heresy within the Church over the gay issue, as well as many other issues of concern. (Take note, I think the “conservatives” have acted no better – if anything the leaders are most egregious in their spin and manipulation of the truth as they’ve worked to discredit, repudiate, and replace TEC in the USA.)
I’m afraid that gleeful vindictiveness might well rule the day in the hearts and minds of the self-identified “liberal” leadership within the Church – and within the Remain Episcopalian group within the Diocese of San Joaquin. They seem to be too quick to “kick-out” or “inhibit” or “request replacement of Executive Council lay representatives“.
I hope I will be proven wrong. I hope the liberals will act like true liberals! I hope everyone will act like the Church acted during and after the Civil War concerning the bishops and people of the Confederate Episcopal Church. The former bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin should have been inhibited. He made up his mind and acted by abrogating his vows made during his ordinations and now submits himself to another Province. The consequences of his actions are what was and is expected. The clergy and people of that diocese, however, are a different matter. We all get caught up in things and we all make decisions that we might come to regret. Grace, forgiveness, and mercy and all those words we like to throw around are concepts we really need to act within.
Can we be a little more patient? Really! What do we have to lose, other than our desire to exact vengeance? The Rule we should live by is not the way-of-the-world and American politics. The Rule we are to live by is “love thy neighbor as thyself” and “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” When the rubber-hits-the-proverbial-road, do we believe in this Rule or not? Are we to be shown to be hypocrites, once again? It doesn’t matter how the other guys have acted or what they have done, folks. It matters how each one of us responds and then acts!
We have time, believe it or not. Let’s let the characters involved in this drama dig-their-own-ditches and make-their-own-beds. The characters on their other side of the divide may prove to be no less apt to shoot themselves in the foot – to the detriment of the Church and the cause of Christ.
Dan Martins on his blog, Confessions of a Carioca, is dealing with this whole affair in San Joaquin quite well. People should read what he is writing. He knows what he is talking about.
Update:
Episcopal News Service report
Mark Harris of Preludium (Executive Council member)
A quote from Dan Martins’ recent post commenting on +Katherine’s decision to “dismiss” the San Joaquin Standing Committee”

This is a monumental gaffe on her part. Unless, that is, she isn’t really interested in inclusion or reconciliation, but only ideological victory for her side, in which case a scorched earth “take no prisoners” policy is the way to go.
The rapid disintegration of due process in “this Church” should be worrisome to those of every ideological and theological stripe. More on that later.

I am beginning to worry.
Update: Letter of response from the 4 priests and 2 lay members of the “current”/”past” Standing Committee of the Diocese of San Joaquine
Fr. Jake comments