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.

Okay, deep breath.
Again, I am not opposed to Katharine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of the Diocese of Nevada, being our new Presiding Bishop. Within this Church, we are being consistent. My concern, however, is what this does and says to our ecumenical partners overseas and within this country – Anglican, Roman, Orthodox, and American Evangelical. What does this say to those who accuse this Church, as well as the United States in general, of being self-centered, arrogant, and unilateral in its dealings with the rest of the world?
You know, it just gets very tiring trying to honestly understand all sides (attempting to walk in the shoes of those of opposite opinion) and attempting to hold both sides in tension – seeking the ‘via media’ where a balanced understanding of things probably resides. It is emotionally draining attempting to put aside my own opinions (and I am very opinionated, as some well know, particularly my former seminary roommates), my own wants and desires. It is very difficult letting go of what I want and what I think is best.
I have a big thing about hypocrisy and inconsistency. I know that I am hypocitical and inconsistent at times, but I strive not to be and I hope that people will show me where I am being so.
My prayer, Lord help me, is that I will understand my own culturally bound proclivities, my own cultural biases. I pray that I will see and understand as clearly as possible this colored lens of American culture through which I see and understand the world. I hope that I can truly be an alien and stranger to this world, not for the sake of just being peculiar but to live fully into the Gospel of Christ – which is neither liberal or conservative, Western or Eastern, Northern or Southern, Evangelical or Anglo-Catholic, etc., etc., etc. I pray that I can be – truly be – a person that will defend anyone’s right to their opinion and freedom to express such opinion and to be at the table. I pray that I can walk in humility knowing that I see through the glass darkly and that I will not truly know until I see Him face-to-face.
That’s all. I know that I have my own ‘stuff’ to deal with and work through. In all this, as in the situation with our current government and social issues (Cultural Wars), I find too many people no longer wanting or willing to come to a common position. Too many people just want their ideology, position, theological perspective to win, regardless of the consequences to other people not of our own tribe.

These are my first thoughts, and they are by no means my last ones. Writing later and after processing this more, I may come to very different conclusions as the days go by. Thanks, Jason, for letting me know!
Well, while the final concurrence from the House of Deputies has not yet happened as of this writing, I have it on good word that nothing negative has been heard among the deputies. So, it seems that we have our first female Presiding Bishop and Primate.
From the very beginning, I want to make it very clear that theologically, socially, and scripturally I do not have any problem with women priests, bishops, or primates. Heck, I grew up in a denomination that was started by a woman.
Here is my hesitancy with our action: Where is the consistency?
What I mean is this – I know many people who decry the United States government because it acts unilaterally around the world, does not respect other cultures and traditions, and acts arrogantly and selfishly when dealing with others on the international stage. Yet, in this Church, so many of the very same people who will condemn the United States government will wonderfully proclaim this Church’s right to do these kinds of things, regardless of the opinions, feelings, cultural sensitivities, and concerns of our so-called sister Church/provinces around the world.
We know this action will further the claims and perceptions that the American Church is arrogant, selfish, and imperialistic as it attempts to shove down their throats representatives, policies, and theologies they cannot accept. Where is our humility? What does it mean to be a church-catholic? What does it mean to consider the “weaker brother” if that can even be applied to this situation?
Yes, absolutely, and with complete agreement I say that females have the same rights and responsibilities as any male in this Church, as do gay people, but why are so many people willing to restrict American’s rights over various economic and social issues for the sake our brothers and sisters around the world, but we are unwilling to do the very same thing in this Church over certain issues?
Consistency and no hypocrisy! If we want to be vanguard, rebellious, and progressive in this Church regardless of what anyone else around the world says, then fine. That really is okay and our purgative, but don’t expect then to be a world-wide church and part of a world-wide communion where we really do consider ourselves sensitive to the concerns of others. So, then, I expect those same people who will not consider “a weaker brother” concerning this Church in the world to shut up concerning American social and governmental arrogance concerning politics and economic issues. It is the same thing, in my mind.
I have heard that our new PB is the best qualified, and I have no reason to doubt that. This is a good thing, but only if we really do consider ourselves and island unto ourselves.

I am worn out. This is also the day when the reality of letting-go has become the most real. I suspect the whole thing began with the Spanish stuff in what I thought/think a “common” worship should be, considering that the vast majority are English speakers.
Two days ago, I talked with one of the Orthodox monks at their booth while looking at icons and Russian church music, which I love. We talked for a good bit about the vows of obedience. His will be more complete and all encompassing than my own, but living into obedience in honesty and with integrity is very difficult and takes time to relinquish one’s own want and desire.
This is not an obedience issue, but closely related. The letting go of and giving up of self is horrible. It is very difficult.
Here, now, I am finding it terribly hard to let go – of expectations, wants, ideas of what should and should not be, what is right and proper and what is not, or of desire. Letting go of my own expectations concerning living arrangements, jobs, ministry is not easy. Letting go of anger, frustration, disappointment, dreams, friendships, everything is proving to be unbearable.
Where is the line, the point of crossing? Letting go of everything is to become nothing, it would seem. Where is that line between letting go and holding something so dear so close – even tenaciously?
I can see that the holding of some things so close is nothing more than me – all about me. Holding such things too close will bring nothing but frustration, bitterness, perhaps much anger. It isn’t worth it! Wisdom, wisdom and discernment through the power of the Holy Spirit are what are needed. Lord help me.

I attended a legislative session this afternoon and the combined hearing concerning the resolutions coming from the special commission on the Windsor Report before the special committee.
I am proud to be an Episcopalian and an Anglican. Proud, because within the various denominations I have been involved with over the years, this kind of respectful debate could never have happened. I value my years in the Foursquare Church, the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ, the Assemblies of God, and a couple independent Charismatic churches, but in none of them would this kind of dialogue, debate, and difference been allowed. People spoke passionately, but they spoke well and where for the most part respectfully received.
During the opening hearing before the special committee, six at a time were called as a group to the microphone to speak. The third or so group to be called forward ended with Bishop Duncan from Pittsburgh and Bishop Robinson from New Hampshire. The crowd of more than 1,700 (including all those sitting outside the ballroom) shifted and the murmur went up, at which point the secretary (?) of the committee simply said, “I’m just reading the list.” The crowd laughed.
Regrettably, Bishop Duncan said that he did not see at this point how the progressive wing and the conservative wing of the Episcopal Church could remain together. He said, basically, that there is now no hope. I hope – I hope that this is not true. This was the big meeting, until the final resolutions are presented to the different houses for approval or rejection. My prayer is that we remain together.
I met Kendall Harman of titusonenine, who was in line with his son before the hearings waiting to sign up to speak. He was very gracious, which I expected. I was a bit embarrassed. He was talking to a friend from the Diocese of Ohio. I waited until they were done and greeted Sam, at which point Kendall said something like, “Bob Griffith – are you the blogger?” I was quite surprised that he would remember who I am, but I wanted to great him and tell him that I appreciate his blog. I am still embarrassed and surprised when I hear from others who read these poorly written and chaotic musings of mine, particularly someone as busy and proficient as Kendall.
I desperately pray and hope, somehow through God’s grace and our ability to move in humility, that we will remain together in this wonderful and incredible enterprise called Anglicanism – part of the One Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
I spent a good amount of time with Jason and Jodi during the afternoon. I am very glad I got to hang (if I put “out” at this end of “hang,” does it mean I’m and old fart) with them.
I am very tired.

This is a last comment on this topic. Wouldn’t you know it – almost the entire Eucharist this morning was in Spanish. I resigned myself to be present in the service the same way I was present in services in different European services when I served in Europe. I could be present, but not in the way those who understood the language could be present.
I had no idea what the sermon was about, and I forgot the printout of the sermon in English at our table.
These questions still arise: What do we mean by “Common” and how is it experienced in this kind of context? What is the purpose of the convention Eucharist’s?
I do understand the desire for this church to be welcoming and hospitable to all kinds of people. I affirm that desire. But, if we do not provide space for there to be a truly “common” experience, and I understand that some will not sense the commonality like all the others (been there, done that), we will balkanize. We already see this happening concerning our current troubles.
Okay, enough about this.
By the way, I heard the U2charist was great! It is reported that around 700+ showed up – literally standing room only. I wish I could have been there.
It is great seeing people I haven’t talked to in a long time.

Since I think “out-loud,” a lot of what gets into this blog is just that – thinking out loud. It is problematic at times because some will take everything I post as being what I think is gospel truth, when in actuality it is just ruminations. Of course, in all the ruminating what I do believe at any given period in time does come through.
When I think about the past post “What is going on with me?” as I tried to express some of the unexpected anger I was feeling over yesterday’s Eucharist, I realize that this is probably what I really want to say:
When we gather together from 16 different countries and from every area in this country in a worship space that accommodates 3,500 people at a convention where approximately 10,000 participate in one form or another, in order to have any sense of “common prayer” it seems that we would want to do that which is most familiar and easiest to comprehend.
It often seems, however, that those who plan these kinds of services see them as an opportunity to do the unexpected, the unusual, the “innovative,” the different in order to expose people to new things. I understand that, but when we have the common convention Eucharist, I don’t see how doing such things enable us to worship together, even though I know that while in English and according to the established forms of the Prayer Book will frustrate and anger some.
Yesterday, there was the U2 Eucharist. At some point soon there will be the Hip-Hop Eucharist. I suspect there will also be Eucharists in Spanish, perhaps French and German, too. Okay, so what about Anglo-Catholics? What about Charistmatics? This church allows for such a breadth of piety, and I believe this strengthens us and provides for the needs of many different kinds of people. A strength, yes, but when we have a common service, it should be in a form that will speak to and meet the needs of the vast majority of those participating.
That’s just my opinion.
On another topic – the battles have begun.
It came home to me yesterday that the different sides of the most pressing issues really do not understand their opponents. That is a shame, and it hinders us from coming to any kind of compromise. The really sad aspect of it all is that too many do not even want to understand their opponents.
The way I see it, do everything you can to get into the skin of one’s opponent to truly understand their perspective. Then, one can argue against it, but one doesn’t have to demonize the other in the process. And, incidentally, the original opinion held by the one doing the investigating may actually be changed in some way. A meeting of the minds may well be able to be accomplished at that point, even if to amicably agreeing to disagree.

By the way, it feels so funny when someone says, “Hello, Father.” I realized during today’s Eucharist, too, how much of a minority I am in the sense of becoming more “high-church” or “anglo-catholic.”