More on GAFCON and the evil “West”

Posted on by

I had forwarded to me, by my friend Anthony, an article (commentary) by George Pitcher in the Telegraph (UK) concerning comments made by the good Canon I mentioned in a previous post. Pitcher was not pleased with the Canon’s estimation of the world and the Church.
Here are a couple examples from the article:

Meanwhile… Virtueonline… declares that it is “the height of western Anglican arrogance to perpetuate the myth that the West holds sway over the communion.
“That day is long gone along with the Elizabethan Settlement and the British Empire.
“A new global Anglican Communion day is dawning and its strength is coming from new global quarters.”
So this conference of Anglican dissenters is not about homosexuality at all… Nor is it really about Biblical authority…
It is simply about where the locus of Anglican authority should reside. And it is driven by a post-colonial political imperative; the West has used and abused the Global South and now it’s pay-back time.
In this worldview, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, is a “relic” (Canon Samuel’s word) of old empire, who must be replaced, presumably by the likes of Archbishop Akinola…
This presumes that Dr Williams is a political leader to be overthrown by an official opposition. He is nothing of the sort… The Archbishop of Canterbury is primus inter pares in the worldwide Anglican Communion, holding together (or trying to) a loose federation of global churches, often at odds with one another but on a common journey.”

Well, yes. I left out some of the more “descriptive” impressions Pitcher detailed in describing Akinola and GAFCON participants because I think he goes too far. I will say again, a reason these kinds of groups use terminology like “post-colonial” or “relic” to describe the “old” Anglican Communion and Archbishop is because the “old” guard does not do what they want. They imagine that since they have more numbers at the moment that they should, can, and will dictate what everyone else must do and believe, and do because God told this group what we all should and should not do and believe. The sad thing for me is that I actually agree with some of the stuff they stress, but I will not simply believe anything because a group tells me to. Too many of the members of this kind of group or mindset do want to dictate rather than live in the messy world of process (and I’m NOT talking about Process Theology), wrestling with very difficult issues, and critically thinking which often lead to different opinions.
Difference in belief is not good, in this way of thinking. God has established one Truth that is discernible in all ways and for all times without question, and to question is to repudiate and doubt. Does history bare this out? Funny thing is, they want to hold onto the “old, tried, and true” systems of thinking, believing, and doing when it comes to issues of morality or theology or praxis, but want to jettison the “old, tried, and true” when it comes to issues of governance, authority, and relationships – even in the “old” idea that the validity of the Sacraments do not depend on the celebrant’s human condition. Is this another example of the shift in the way we deal with Truth seen between the Modernist and Post-Modernist systems?
If there is opposition to their dictates from the “West” (which includes provinces and bishops in Africa, Asia, South American, and other parts of the “Global South”) it is because of… what? heresy, apostasy, capitulation to the heathen, pagan culture, Satan’s deception, and on and on.
These are convenient charges that sound very politically correct. Isn’t that strange?
WELL, we go on fighting within the world’s third largest expression of the religion of Christianity. All the while, this comment posted to the article sums up what I imagine most people think (if they even know anything about what is going on):

Reading this reminded me of why I consider the CoE to be a complete irrelevance. I can just about “get” Roman Catholicism, although I am not a member of that Church…
At the moment, it happens to be divided by a bitter internal feud, and its members have fallen into the common error of thinking that if they feel strongly about their feud, it must represent important issues.
The fact is, however, that like a feuding family, it is only those inside the feud who think it important while the rest of us look on in bemusement, wondering what all the fuss is about.
What’s amazing to me is how many of your readers, on either side, seem to imagine that this feud has any significance at all in the wider world. The spats between my pet cats make more sense to me that this nonsense.
Posted by… on June 26, 2008 11:07 PM

The City #23

Posted on by

I ran down through Red Hook and into Brooklyn Heights yesterday to see the new art instillation of the “waterfalls” in the East River. In a rather stark part of the dock & warehouse areas of the Brooklyn Port Authority by the air-intake tower for the Battery tunnel, I was able to get an up-close-and-personal experience of one of the water falls. The wind was blowing and the spray from the waterfall (which fell from a superstructure of steel scaffolding) came back upon the ground and pavement.
I was hot from running (and because it was just hot and humid) so initially I thought the spray felt good, but then… Where was this water coming from? Well, it was being pumped out of the East River. Then, of course, I got as far from the spray as I could. Luckily, not much of the falling water got on me – after all, who wants water from the East River socking you to the bone? Not me! (At least it doesn’t stink any more!)
I did experience a glimpse of tourist hell – a mini-van full of a family from Florida quickly drove up to the air-intake tower and the very close waterfall, pulled out their little digital camera, took a shot, and sped off. Now, they can go home and tell their friends that they saw the famous waterfalls. I suppose it is too much to ask that they at least get out of the van – I mean, with the high cost of gasoline and all. I’m being a twit, I know.
Down close to the Brooklyn Bridge there is a small park (the beginnings of a much larger park that will run the perimeter of the Brooklyn-East River shoreline) where people can get a very good view of the falls. I was able to see for of the installations. I don’t think they have the same impact as did the Gates in Central Park, but they are kind of interesting. The next thing I need to do is take my camera so that I can get some pictures so that I can make a banner for my blog so that I can show my friends that I actually saw the famous falls. At least I will walk to the site of the photos. I’m being a twit, I just know it.

GAFCON and Rowan Williams – attitudes and actions

Posted on by

I was reading in the Guardian UK about recent happenings at the “Global Anglican Futures Conference” (GAFCON) in Jerusalem. GAFCON is the “alternative” Lambeth that many of the anti-gay-inclusion Anglicans are having so that they don’t have to be around all the other Anglicans that don’t think like they do.
This particular article focuses on statements made by Canon Vinay Samuel, a member of the GAFCON leadership team, concerning the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, and the Anglican Churches of the West. From the Guardian article, he is quoted as saying such things as:

– “‘We know a little more than he gives us a credit for… The church is such a mess and unable to understand the post-colonial reality,’ Samuel said.”
– “Rowan Williams did not adequately appreciate the intellectual subtlety and depth of the developing world.”
– “Race gets entrenched on religious institutions and it takes longer to get rid of. Williams has to really trust the leadership of non-western primates.”
– “Rowan Williams is too much of a relic of the old left ideology which is not pragmatic enough.”
– “‘I would dismantle Canterbury and Lambeth, they have little influence and do not reflect the reality of the world,’ Samuel said.”

The accusation that those of the West cannot escape a colonial mindset or are beset with racist tendencies seems to me to be more about the West’s refusal to agree with and acquiesce to the demands of the Southern archbishops/primates and their beliefs rather than about actual incidents involving racist or colonialist attitudes or actions. My perception is that they feel slighted, ignored, sidelined, maligned basically because Williams and others in the West simply do not do as they say. They take upon themselves the role of defenders of the true faith and if others disagree with them, well, those others must not really love Jesus but rather their heathen culture. To disagree with the “Third-World,” “Southern Hemisphere,” “African/Asian” “conservative-orthodox” interpretation of Scripture, their understanding of correct social mores, et.al., means that they are not respected and that those in the West who disagree with them are beset by attitudes of racism and colonialism. I really doubt that Williams does not understand them or the geo-political and cultural realities. He, and others, simply disagree. To allow for disagreement IS Anglican.
While reading the Guardian article, I came across an organization I have never heard of before, Anglican Spread, which seems to be an organization bent on the furtherance of a Reformed (Calvinist) form of Anglicanism. In an article on their website, they reference a speach giving by the Archbishop of Canterbury to seminary students in Toronto in 2007 concerning this miss understanding and use of Romes 1 by those determined to reject and condemn of forms of same-sex relationships.
For some reason I missed this! The news report of the speech from Reuters is entitled, “Anglican head Williams says anti-gays misread Bible.” The article states:

“The spiritual leader of the world’s 77 million Anglicans has said conservative Christians who cite the Bible to condemn homosexuality are misreading a key passage written by Saint Paul almost 2,000 years ago.
“Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams… said an oft-quoted passage in Paul’s Epistle to the Romans meant to warn Christians not to be self-righteous when they see others fall into sin.”
“Many current ways of reading miss the actual direction of the passage,” Williams said…
“Paul is making a primary point not about homosexuality but about the delusions of the supposedly law-abiding.”

Speaking of the portion of Scripture and its use, Williams is quoted as saying:

“It would not help pro-gay liberals, he said, because Paul and his readers clearly agreed that homosexuality was “as obviously immoral as idol worship or disobedience to parents.”
“This reading would also upset anti-gay conservatives, who have been ‘up to this point happily identifying with Paul’s castigation of someone else,’ and challenge them to ask whether they were right to judge others, he added.?
“‘This does nothing to settle the exegetical questions fiercely debated at the moment,’ Williams said.”

Life

Posted on by

Well, what can one say about life? Nothing new under the sun, this is a true saying and worthy of repeating, often.
It can be so difficult when I watch people I care about and see them descending further into dysfunction, heartache, harm, or whatever else besets this life of ours. It is frustrating because I just don’t know what to do. There is a point where I have to let go, I know. But where is that point? Really, how do I know that time has come or that I’m just being selfish or lazy or bothered?
I can’t imagine what parents go through when they watch a son or daughter descend into hell and no matter what they do, they can’t stop it. The son is determined to destroy the once lovely life that was so apparent in childhood. The daughter cannot help but yield to an internal need that drives her to destruction when all could see the potential and hope. Why do we do this to ourselves? Why do we do this to each other? Why can we not love ourselves as He loves us? Why can we not love our neighbor as we come to love ourselves? Why can we not love, honestly?
We put our hope in… what? Perhaps we put our hope in the wrong things.

I Once Was Lost

Posted on by

CT has a review of a new book that describes ways of engaging in evangelism with young, post-moderns. The book is entitled, “Once Was Lost: What Postmodern Skeptics Taught Us About Their Path to Jesus” by Don Everts and Doug Schaupp (don’t know who they are??).
A quote from the CT review: “Everts and Schaupp’s thesis is this: Postmoderns respond best to evangelists who allow for and encourage a process… The label postmodern is held loosely, meant simply to describe ‘how things are right now,’ rather than to conform to a technical definition.”
When I was doing campus ministry work among European students, particularly Germans, the one thing that distinguished the attitudes of German/European students from Americans was their insistence on truly working through and understanding the decision to become a Christian. Sometimes, a person may be in a ministry for a couple years and actively engaged, but would not describe him/herself as a Christ. That was okay with the leadership, because they knew that when the student did make a decision, it was real and would probably be life-long. They went through a process, and I think the patience with and trust of the process was very good.
It was very frustrating to many American students that come to Germany because they were used to call for and expecting decisions to “accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior” right then and there. Just get them to say the prayer, and everything will be okay. As anyone who has been involved in evangelism and discipleship of American college students can tell you, the spur of the moment decision to follow Jesus often means seed falling on rocky or thorny soil. They go no where, and in the end often think that their experience IS the Christ-centered life. The experience is a very deficient form of Christian religion, but little of Christian faith and the Christ centered life.
The process is good! All of life in Christ is a process that never ends – for the good. If the hard won process brings freedom, peace, beauty, joy, then bring it on! That is what makes the life in Christ so intriguing and non-boring (if we allow God to work in us and do in us what is necessary!). There is always something new, always a challenge, always a renewal of things.
This is one reason why I like the approach Anglicanism generally takes (including Anglican-Evangelicalism, but often not the American-Evangelical part of Anglicanism). There is an understanding of and allowance for process and the good that results. (Some people go to far with process, however, by never expecting or calling for decision making, often simply bringing people in the door with nothing happening thereafter.)
When we allow for process, we need to recognize that people in all parts of the process will be with us. This is messy. It doesn’t sit well with the sensibility of Americans who are so now-oriented and desirous of instant-gratification (and self-righteous perfectionism at times). People in the process who haven’t come to the point where they can honestly and with integrity commit their life to Christ, but who are seriously seeking, often don’t act or think like we believe Christians should act or think.
Some people can’t handle this – some expressions of the faith can’t handle it. Anglicans can, and I think this is why we have a lot of people in our midst who are seeking but aren’t there yet. There is an allowance for being wrong, confused, and just not sure. This is one reason, I think, that the Episcopal Church is messy and misunderstood. This is also why, I think, so many people want to look at the Episcopal Church and yell heresy or apostasy or whatever.
I well understand why this kind of messy environment makes people feel a bit insecure, uncomfortable, or fearful. I get caught in that trap, too. I think sometimes I have to defend God, as if I know full well what God thinks and have to protect His wishes against the onslaught of the Enemies of God (which are, who?). How funny. Really, how funny. Anyway, I understand why it is far easier to cast dispersions on people who can’t check off a list of criteria that “proves” their Christianhood, and thus worthy of fellowship with those who are “in,” then to be involved in the struggle, the ambiguity, and the patient seriousness of the process people must go through either on the forefront of the decision or as an after-thought. It is better for the struggle to come before the decision, than after.
I’ve seen too many people who deal with the struggles of the Christians faith afterward and end up having their faith shipwrecked. Christianity isn’t a marketing scheme. It is a transformational process that requires not buying into something (a system), but giving up everything. While we have to hear again and again how evil is the Episcopal Church, I frankly would much rather be around people who are notorious sinners but are honestly curious and desirous of God than those who smugly gloat over being one of the select, the saved, the righteous. (Isn’t that what Jesus did – which might well fall into ideas of orthopraxis.)
I’m glad I’m an Anglican!

Young Baptist preachers chart different courses

Posted on by

I know that the Episcopal Church and Anglicanism are not the only groups in the midst of controversy, competition, in-fighting, and the like. Most American mainline denominations are pulling themselves apart to one degree or another, not just the Episcopalians. The fight in many of the more conservative or Evangelical churches tend to be around the resulting different emphases and methods between Modernists and Post-modernists.
A couple decades ago, the “conservatives” in the Southern Baptist Convention gained control of the denomination and proceeded to purge the seminaries, colleges, churches, missionaries, and leadership of theological and social “moderates” and especially “liberals.” They succeeded. The Southern Baptists truly become a Fundamentalist denomination, and proudly so. There are groups within the mainline denominations that are trying to do the same kind of thing, although probably not to lead the Churches to Fundamentalism, but at least American-Evangelicalism – back to the “real Faith.”
This is the thing about those who believe that they stand up for and live out the “faith as it has always been” from the very beginning, free of cultural influences and capitulation – the reality is that none of us do! The truth is, and this is the Truth-on-the-Ground, is that few understand what culture does to us and few take the time to learn about how the Church’s understanding of God, its interpretation of Scripture, its sense of how to live godly lives has changed radically! A survey of history will make this assertion obvious. This does not mean that the essence of the faith is any different – God came to us to free us from sin and death and to re-enable relationship and reconciliation between God and Man and between one another.
All that to say that even within the Southern Baptist Convention, which experienced decline in membership and baptisms last year (which should be no surprise, because social-Christianity continues to decline in the U.S.), there are still fights and challenges to what the Faith is and means and how to best live it out. They are certainly not where the Episcopal Church is at, but it is only by degree and time span.
Here is an article entitled, “Young Baptist preachers chart different courses,” about the changes within the Southern Baptist expression of the Faith and controversy that results.

What Religion? Jesus Loves You?

Posted on by

I just came across these YouTube videos be “somegreyguy.”
The first considers what religion might be best to follow. As “somegreyguy” wrote on YouTube, “I’m getting older every day, and therefore closer to being dead, so I’m thinking that maybe it’s time to start sorting out my afterlife.” We hear all the time that when young couples have a baby, suddenly everything changes and there are considerations that they didn’t dwell on before, often resulting in a return to the Church. I wonder how many Baby-Boomer types as they approach the reality of their mortality will begin considering their own state with reference to the “afterlife.” After all, even Ted Turner now has a more positive regard for religion generally and Christianity specifically (and that is certainly a change!).
Here is the first video entitled: “Choosing My Religion”

Now, the second video takes up from the first (it seems). Someone did contact him about a religion to consider, and Christianity was (is) that religion. I sometimes try to put myself into the state of mind and cultural awareness of those who are unchurched or who have had a very negative experience with the Church or Christians. I try to see from the prevailing culture what they may see. This isn’t easy because I grew up within various segments of the Christian sub-culture in the United States (and a little bit in Europe – Germany more specifically and England by default).
This next video, I think, is a good representation of the perception many people have of Christianity in America – really come from the politicized Religious Right form of Evangelical-Fundamentalism and Roman Catholicism. For those who actually consider what is being said, I think there is a good bit of perplexity about what is claimed to be true and necessary by Christians and why.
Here is the video, entitled: “Jesus Loves You.”

Personal ecclesiastic fiefdoms

Posted on by

Recently, there has come to light a “gay wedding” at a Church of England parish in London. From what I read, it has caused quite a row. The policy of the Church of England as of now is that civil-union ceremonies or “marriages” are not allowed in CofE churches, although civil-unions are legal in England (and for priests).
In a recent Guardian Online (UK) story entitled, “Priest rebuked for ‘marrying’ gay vicars in church,” the Bishop of London, the Right Reverend Richard Chartres, is reported to have rebuked the priest, the Reverend Martin Dudley, of St. Bartholomew’s parish for conducting the “marriage” between two vicars.
The bishop’s rational for his rebuke is not what might first come to mind – anti-gay stuff. Here are a couple paragraphs from the article quoting the bishop’s letter to Fr. Dudley concerning his reasons for the rebuke:

In his letter to Dudley today, the bishop of London wrote: “I read in the press that you had been planning this event since November. I find it astonishing that you did not take the opportunity to consult your bishop. St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence.”
The point at issue was not civil partnerships or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice because there was a range of church opinion on these matters and homophobia was not tolerated in the Diocese of London, he added.
“The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your bishop.” [Emphasis mine]

I think the issue of “personal fiefdoms” and willfully defying church order, Canons, et cetera, is primary concerning so many of the controversies going on within not only the CofE, but also the Episcopal Church USA and all of the Communion. I like the term “personal fiefdoms.” Too many priests feel as if their parish is their own to do with and to whatever they “feel” is right, and to hell with vows, Canons, ecclesiastical rules, et cetera.
There are times when civil or ecclesiastic disobedience is important and justified. There are times when situations in organizations become so onerous to abide by that priests and/or people leave – quietly and peaceably (or at least they should). Civil or ecclesiastic disobedience should not be the norm, however. It has become the norm in too many places and we are all suffering the consequences of fiefdoms and disobedience.
Hat-tip: Thinking Anglicans
UPDATE: Here are the pertinent paragraphs from the bishop’s letter itself:

“The point at issue is not Civil Partnerships themselves or the relation of biblical teaching to homosexual practice. There is of course a range of opinion on these matters in the Church and, as you know, homophobia is not tolerated in the Diocese of London. The real issue is whether you wilfully defied the discipline of the Church and broke your oath of canonical obedience to your Bishop.
“The Archbishops have already issued a statement in which they say that “those clergy who disagree with the Church’s teaching are at liberty to seek to persuade others within the Church of the reasons why they believe, in the light of Scripture, tradition and reason that it should be changed. But they are not at liberty simply to disregard it.”
“St Bartholomew’s is not a personal fiefdom. You serve there as an ordained minister of the Church of England, under the authority of the Canons and as someone who enjoys my licence. I have already asked the Archdeacon of London to commence the investigation and I shall be referring the matter to the Chancellor of the Diocese. Before I do this, I am giving you an opportunity to make representations to me direct.”

The City #22

Posted on by

I got off the subway returning home a little bit ago after having dinner with a friend in Central Park (the trains were slow – took me an hour to get home). It had just stopped raining – the kind of quick downpour that leaves everything soaking wet, but the clouds part and the sun starts to shine as water drips from everything. A cool breeze, and the air smelled good.
As I was walking down the street a few brave souls resumed playing in the park, but instead of the voices of the kids playing catching my attention, I heard someone singing. I figured up ahead there was a car with someone sitting with the window opened listening to the radio, but I passed car after car and no radio playing. So then, I thought perhaps someone had a radio playing loudly in their apartment, window opened.
I started looking up at the brownstones, listening. The singer had a very nice voice – it sounded familiar, kind of a young, pop ballad kind of voice. It was nice. Then on the third floor of an old brownstone in the bay window I saw a girl with a microphone and another girl at an electric piano, barely noticeable. The voice I heard was hers – live.
I looked up and watched them through the window as I walked by. I decided to turn around and go back to listen a little more. I tried to be inconspicuous. I passed by, backtracked, but no where to hind. I just turned around again to continue home. At this point, looking up at the window, she saw me and smiled. I was caught. She was caught, and stopped singing for a New York minute. I don’t know whether she was caught off guard – not expecting anyone to see her or pay attention to her singing. Perhaps she was embarrassed. I don’t know.
The City is full of these little kind of things. So often they are lost in the noise and busyness of the City, but after a quieting rain a voice carries and I just have to pause and listen. I am fortunate when these little moments get through – kind of like stopping and smelling the flowers. I wonder what was going through her mind when she realized that someone heard her, someone was listening, someone discovered her and her friend practicing.
This neighborhood is a little too expensive at this point for struggling artists, but there are still some and the ones that have a little luck in their careers move here. I love this neighborhood and this City in all its dynamic craziness. Perhaps some day, this women will be famous and I will remember back to one rainy day when I heard a voice coming from a third floor walk-up in Brooklyn and think, “I saw her…”
A new Ikea just opened, yesterday. It is a 20 minute walk from my apartment. An Ikea 20 minutes away. Lord. Red Hook will never be the same. The Queen Mary docks, an Ikea opens, what’s next?