From the Cloud of Witnesses

From + Gene’s blog:


“ We also had a disturbing private (no one in the gallery) conversation in the House of Bishops that led me to feel discouraged about what lies ahead. That conversation is private, so I can't detail it, but there seems to be a kind of belligerent attitude toward the House of Deputies by some of our bishops. Their vision of the episcopate is way too "high and mighty" for my taste, or my theology, and I am not happy about it. The last thing we bishops need is a larger measure of arrogance. Didn't Jesus save his most serious criticism for the religious powers-that-be of his day who lorded their power and position over others?”

Comments: I am so glad to hear that at least one bishop has the same opinion as I. Over the past 15 years I have seen the devolution of the once revered position of bishop in the Episcopal Church. In my opinion, I have watched a singular movement, that of Romanizing of the Anglican catholic movement, take our once well-balanced polity off onto a quasi-Romish path. I see it in TEC and I see it in the Anglican Communion especially in the UK and various former colonies of the UK in Africa.

Now, don’t get me wrong! I am catholic to the core when it comes to the idea of a universal, liturgical, apostolically rooted faith. When I left Rome in the 1970’s I did not leave the catholic church! I came to a reformed catholicism that was current in theology and had a solid grounding in both western and eastern apostolic tradition. It is a type of catholicism that can support newness while understanding its roots. It is the Church that is strongly rooted in Jesus and the Scriptures without becoming mired in the past or in dogma.

The type of anglo-catholicism in TEC is not even really rooted in the Roman tradition either. This kind of anglo-catholicism is the aping of the outward trappings of Roman Catholicism without understanding the interior meanings of what it means to be Roman Catholic. It includes a slavish type of obedience that becomes a characterizing of the role of priest and bishop. It shoves the goodness of the offices into being what it never was—a place where one serves the Church, not rules it. It makes priests pawns and bishops arrogant politicians that care less for their flocks and more for their power. It is not surprising that Clarence Pope came running back from his trip into Roman Catholicism.

In the ‘70’s and early ‘80s bishops knew themselves to be servants of the servants of God. They knew that they had power only if there was a balance among the laity and clergy. They were accountable to the clergy of their dioceses because rectors had not only the right to criticize their bishops when they erred; they had the obligation to do so. It was implied in the kind of respect that clergy had for one another and for their bishop because they had elected him (and in those days it was always a him.)

Even in those areas where Anglo-Catholicism was not the overriding churchmanship, it is interesting that this image of overly powerful bishops has worked itself into the fabric of TEC. Perhaps it has fed the Boomer need for structure and surety. But it has not served TEC well. And even though we have lost many of the arch-Romish bishops such as Iker and Schofield, we still have enough in the House of Bishops who still see their role as ruling over the clergy and laity rather than working with them—being servants of the servants of God. It is not surprising for me to hear that there are those who are degrading of the House of Deputies--it is sort of like those who look down their noses at those who pay their salaries and give them the status they have. But I can understand why +Gene is disheartened.

The role of bishop in TEC is not one of power and entitlement. It is one of influence. It is one in which the leadership is to bring differing ideas together and bring some kind of consensus to the Christian community called a diocese and the House of Bishops. I am thankful for the witness of +Gene to this phenomenon in the HOB. Perhaps his humble presence will be seen as the way to go forward for the future.

It’s About More Than Justice

Michael Hopkins, past president of Integrity was a colleague of mine in Washington, DC/ I have always appreciated the clarity of his thinking. I offer his words as folks prepare for General Convention.

One of the caricatures of the movement for full inclusion of gay, lesbian,
bisexual and transgender persons in the Episcopal Church is that for us it
is all about justice. It is about justice, of course, but it is also about
far, far more. It is about the very nature of Gospel.

“The Gospel” can be defined in as many ways as there are Christians, of
course. Jesus didn’t give us a neat definition with which to work. He did
say it was about the ability to change one’s mind, one’s sense of direction
(“repent and believe the good news”). But for the content of this good news
he used the metaphor of the kingdom of God and told a lot of stories. In
the end he acted out one great story with his life and his death. Overall,
the good news is about the overcoming of estrangement, reconciliation
between God and humankind and between human beings. We all have to trust in
his death and resurrection for this reconciliation to be the truth that sets
us free. This freedom is grace, as we call it, unmerited favor.

The inclusion of lgbt people in the life of the church is a radical sign of
this grace. People whom the law separates from the faithful are reconciled
by it. And this happens in spite of religious and secular authorities
desiring for it not to be so. They fear the breakdown of society if the
inclusion goes too far too fast, but it has always been thus with the
Church, which at its best has always scandalized the authorities, because
Jesus Christ was and is the greatest scandal of them all.

A well-meaning bishop once said to my then Senior Warden (who was relatively
new to the parish—it was a small parish, rebuilding) that it was great that
she chose to be a member of the parish in spite of the fact that I was gay.
My Senior Warden responded, “No, I’m a member of this parish because he is
gay. Because if God can love him then God can love me.”

That’s what this is about. This is not about a group of people clamoring
for their “rights.” It is about the power of the Gospel to reconcile across
every divide that humankind creates.

As a Christian who happens to be gay, St. Paul’s words that we will hear the
Sunday after General Convention is over (July 19) ring true and strong.

*But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by
the blood of Christ. For he is our peace; in his flesh he has made both
groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the
hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and
ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the
two, thus making peace…*

To this truth, by the grace of God, the lives of glbt Christians bear
witness.

The Rev. Michael W. Hopkins

Bearing Witness: Kwok Pui-lan

By Kwok Pui-lan
June 23, 2009

Kwok Pui-lan is Professor of Christian Theology and Spirituality at the Episcopal Divinity School in Cambridge, MA and winner of the Excellence in Teaching Award of the American Academy of Religion in 2009. She is the author of Postcolonial Imagination and Feminist Theology (Westminster John Knox), and editor of the major reference work Women and Christianity (forthcoming from Routledge). Posted from Religion Dispaches on Facebook.com

On June 8, 1989, four days after the crackdown at Tiananmen Square, I attended the Commencement at Harvard to receive my doctoral degree. Clad in my crimson academic gown, I walked pass the Graduate School of Education on my way to Harvard Yard. Outside the school, many graduates had gathered, getting reading to process toward the Yard. A few graduates handed out strips of white cloth, and asked other graduates to tie them around their arms to remember those Chinese students who died on June 4.

A number of students wore armbands with the Chinese characters minzhu (democracy) on them. Some of them clearly did not understand Chinese, for the Chinese characters on their armbands were upside down. I was deeply moved by the gestures of these graduates, who might not have thought much about China or the Chinese students before these students stunned the world with their peaceful demonstration at the world’s largest public square.

As I entered the Yard, I saw a sea of white strips tied around the arms of graduates in their black or crimson academic gowns. Instead of jubilatory, the mood of the Commencement was subdued. My fellow Harvard graduates wanted to remember those Chinese students who would never graduate and make it to their commencement. Standing in solidarity with the Chinese students, these graduates bore witness to their aspiration for democracy and freedom.

On the twentieth anniversary of June 4, Tiananmen Square was relatively quiet and heavily guarded by the police. Hong Kong, as a Special Administrative Region, was the only place in China where a public candlelight vigil could be held. Several Christian groups in Hong Kong have helped organizing these annual vigils and pushed for the vindication of the June 4 demonstrators. The Hong Kong Christian Patriotic Democratic Movement issued a twentieth anniversary prayer, which says:


Righteous and peaceful God,
We pray to you.
The tears of Tiananmen mothers have not dried.
The curse of the wrongful deaths has not been lifted.
We pray that we will have a gentle and humble heart
To hold steadfast to our belief
And not allow distorted history have the last word . . .
Even though the dark night may be long
The light of our hope will be as long. . .


Last week as the world watched the demonstration of the Iranian people, images of the Tiananmen crackdown flashed back on many people’s minds. President Barack Obama invoked the words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., “the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” He continued, “We are bearing witness to the Iranian peoples’ belief in that truth, and we will continue to bear witness.”

It is fitting to recall Dr. King’s words at a time like this. Dr. King delivered his famous “How Long? Not Long” speech at the end of the march from Selma to Montgomery in Alabama on March 25, 1965. During the earlier marches that month, the peaceful demonstrators were attached by state and local police with billy clubs, tear gas, and bull whips. Toward the end of his speech, Dr. King said:



I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because “truth crushed to earth will rise again.”


How long? Not long, because “no lie can live forever.”. . .


How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.


As the President pondered the words of Dr. King, the U.S. Senate passed the resolution to apologize for slavery and segregationist Jim Crow laws during the same week. The Senate joined the House, which passed a similar resolution last year, which marked the 40th anniversary of the assassination of Dr. King. Although the resolution did not include reparation for African Americans, the apology was a public act of recognition and bearing witness to centuries of brutality, humiliation, and indignity suffered by millions of African Americans. Iowa senator Tom Harkin said: “A national apology by the representative body of the people is a necessary collective response to a past collective injustice.”

Remembering and bearing witness are important practices in many faith traditions. Theologian Johann Baptist Metz said, “Every rebellion against suffering is fed by the subversive power of remembered suffering.” We bear witness because we share the burden of our common humanity.

Comments: Thanks to Ana for posting this on her facepage. I too have been watching these movements with the same interest as I did Selma 44 years ago and Tianamin Square. It is important for the young to stand for equality and justice in the face of those who have used might and dishonesty to maintain their power. The idealism of the young does not dissapate as one grows old. The quest for equality is still there, a bit buffeted and a bit compromised. But it still resides under all the battle scars.

A young college student has asked to interview J and me about Selma for a history project. I am not sure I like that--I feel like a relic of something long past. But the quest for justice and equality is still as much a part of me as in my twenties. I am not sure I have the energy to march any longer. I am not sure I have the endurance to demonstrate and put my life on the line any longer. Not because I am afraid for my life, but because I just can't keep up with the crowd! But I can still email my politicians, I can still write. I can still call govenment and church to account for their resorting to power rather than goodness. Yes, I can still fight the good fight--my methods have just changed.

Constitutional Government

I have been relatively vocal on this blog about locally trained clergy. I am not opposed to locally trained clergy who can lead their congregations and preach the Gospel. I have been concerned with the lack of awareness that many of the locally trained have of canon law, church history, and Holy Scripture. One-day seminars on topics cannot replace the education of a 3 year seminary education.

The locally trained clergy used to be called Canon 10 clergy. There were limitations on what those clergy could do. Canon 10’s could not change dioceses; they were ordained for service in a specific diocese. Then Canon 10 was changed to Canon 9 and then the whole thing was dropped and locally or non-seminary educated clergy were grandfathered into the college of clergy—some were forced to get a seminary education to maintain their ministry. Today, we have a much abbreviated course for locally trained clergy. And from what I have experienced at clergy conferences and diocesan conventions is that their grasp of important tenants of Canon Law, basic legislative process, Robert’s Rules is none to poor. They often do not know the basics of Biblical scholarship and Church tradition. And I am unaware of any continuing education requirement for those who are in charge of parishes. (A continuing education requirement was passed for all clergy at the last General Convention; however, I do not believe that this has been enacted in our diocese.)

Often these locally trained clergy are good pastors. They are usually raised up from the congregations that they are going to serve. They are well respected by their parishes. And that is an important piece of what it means to be a priest of the Church. But priests serve a wider Church than just their parish. Like bishops, the priest is also ordained for the whole of the Church. It is why seminary has been the norm for those to be ordained in the Church.

I am concerned that these locally trained clergy are now delegates for General Convention—the policy making organization of our denomination. Those who have little or no training in the Constitution and Canons of the Church are now the voice to General Convention for our diocese. And with the revision of Title IV on the docket for consideration, I am more than a bit nervous about those who have been elected to represent me.

I subscribe to the HOB/D list serve, the list-serve of the Houses of Deputies and Bishops. I follow the lively discussions in preparation for General Convention next month. I have yet to see a comment from a CNY delegate or alternate. The CNY delegation either is unaware of the list-serve or chooses to remain silent on major issues of the Church. Those of us in this diocese have no idea the stances that our delegation or even the individuals might address the momentous issues that face the Church. How are they going to approach the Anglican Covenant? B033? Title IV? To my knowledge the delegates have not attended any district meetings—if there have even been any in preparation for GC. So how do they know of the gravity of such issues? Or is their only source of information what the bishop tells them?

In times past, there were always meetings in the districts which the delegates came to hear the conversations in the different areas of the diocese so that they could represent the people better. Now it is almost a rotten borough experience. No one is listening to the clergy and laity in preparation for Convention.

This is a major breakdown of our democratic system in the Church—one of the basic principles upon which our Church was founded. If this diocese is ever going to be a diocese that is functional again, the clergy and laity are going to have to demand for better education of our clergy, and careful custody of our Constitution and Canons. The present ignorance will not do.

Episcobloggers: Ministry or menace?

Last night I spent the evening with a group of about 17 or so bloggers whose blogs center on the Episcopal Church or ministry in general. It was good fun, good conversation, good food and most of all an incarnation of friendships and colleagues that have developed in the Epsicoblogosphere over the past few years.
The conversations did not really include much of what is going on in the church. It was more of a filling out of the partial knowledge we have of one another on line. I walked into the restaurant not knowing anyone there and yet before I could even introduce myself—someone said “You’re Muthah+” I didn’t have to tell them my name. They recognized me and welcomed me into their band of brothers and sisters, some of whom have met before.
On HOB/D, the Bishops/Delegate list serve were several complaints from those from N. Michigan complaining that it was the internet that ‘did in’ their bishop-elect who did not get the required approbations from the dioceses and bishops of the church. Yes, there was much discussion on blogs and list-serves about how the bishop had been chosen and about his qualifications for bishop in the Church. And as one commentator suggested, this is what happens in a world in which information is instantaneously available.

Whether the bishop-elect is right for his diocese or not is not the point of this post. Nor is the way that he was elected. What is important is that blogging, facebook, twittering, youtube, etc. are here whether we like it or not. It is the way that human beings connect in our world today. It is an easy way to communicate. It is an important way to discuss issues that face us. It is an awesome tool of evangelism.

But with that awesome tool comes a need for responsibility among those of us who blog. The most important piece of responsibility is the demand for accuracy and truth in what we say. Otherwise, what we say can be rolled into what is nothing more than the back fence. What I learned in meeting my fellow bloggers is how they too understand the ethics and responsibility in ministry online

Most bloggers are well aware that what they say is their own opinion. They are the ones who take on various ecclesial, theological, scriptural, historical issues of our church and discuss them. Some of us older clergy find in blogging memories of those discussions over suds at the closest bar to the seminary. But today the conversations are “out there”, available to anyone who wishes to sign in. They are not confined to the clergy. No longer are discussions regional. They are global. They include lay and clergy alike. In many ways this is more like the era when the reformers took their issues to the printed page in the 16th century.

What I found in meeting those online friends was how clearly we care about the church and how much we appreciate the community of the church online. The community of online church does gravitate to the real presence. It is clear that just online conversation is not enough. We long to know the incarnational Christ that resides in each one of us.

There are those, and I am guessing it is those in the church who are older, who find the openness of internet disturbing. They are those who wish to either maintain the Church as it was, or they want to control the conversations about the church. I was part of the Roman Catholic Church back in the bad ole' days when controling the message of the Church was paramount in their concept of their vocation. Truth was only what they said it was even when the evidence proved otherwise.

Today's Church is calling for transparency and openness. They are calling the leaders of the church to be trustworthy and welcoming. Whether we gather incarnationally or whether we gather technologically, the fact is that we gather and share what it means to be Christ's own together. The Gospel is proclaimed and shared. We are about ministry in Christ's name. Get on board.

I have spent an inordinate amount of time the past month dealing with LGBT issues in the Lutheran Church. Partly because I don’t quite understand how position statements work in Lutheran polity, I have been somewhat concerned about how the Statement on Human Sexuality is going to fly at the Church Wide Assembly.
At Synod Assembly (Diocesan Convention to you Episcopalians who read this blog) this weekend we crafted a memorial to the Church Wide Assembly that called for not only the ordination of LGBT folk but the recognition of same-sex unions.
The Statement (SHS) is a flawed document but it has made some statements about such sticky theological issues that I find it to be exceptional and praiseworthy. For a church that puts so much energy into the concept that “all are sinners,” the insistence that SHS has placed upon the gift of our human sexuality is an important statement. This moves the sex act out of the realm of the ‘necessary for creation’ into the realm of God’s creation for mutual joy. But of course, the SHS came under fire from those who find it too soft on LGBT, especially those in the ordained ministry.
I spoke to the issue as the only lesbian pastor who is out and for a congregation that has been accepting and reconciling. I must admit I found it difficult to do so, not because I was afraid, but because of the responsibility I had to all the silent LGBT people I know I represent. Throughout the rest of the 3 day event, people came to me and thanked me for speaking up, for putting ‘a face on the issue’. The gay and lesbians in the clergy of the ELCA are under wraps. They either keep it quiet or are unwilling to face their own sexuality, choosing, as I did for many years, to ignore what God had gifted me with. It is a terrible waste of human resources.
The ordination of LGBT persons will come about in the ELCA and it will not take very long to get there. But it was to my amazement then when I read Sunday morning that the Synod of Stockholm of the Lutheran Church of Sweden elected a lesbian in a partnered relationship to be Bishop of Stockholm. Woo Hoo! Bishop-elect Eva Brunne and her partner, another pastor, have a 3 year old son. I mentioned this to a member of the congregation and he said “Well, those Swedes have been sexually liberal for a long time!”
I don’t generally take on this issue on this blog but I guess it is time to. It is time to help folks to understand that being gay is a blessing from God, not something to hide from. It is a God-given aspect that makes us different from other folks and helps us understand what all Christians are called to—being different from other folk.
For 1700 years Christians in most countries have had the protection of the state to be Christian. They have not had to separate themselves from the majority of society to live out their Christianity. Now, in a post-Christian world we will have to differentiate ourselves from the majority society in order to live out our Christian calling. If anyone can teach what it means to live on the edge of the majority society, it is gay folk.
I rejoice with the Synod of Stockholm. I rejoice with The Rt. Rev. Gene Robinson of the Episcopal Church who has endured such awful reception in the Anglican Communion that he now has a companion in the struggle to confirm LGBT persons in their call to live as Christ’s own. I pray that Bishop-elect Brunne will be able to lead her synod with the calm resolve that +Gene has done.

I saw a disturbing statistic on the House of Bishops/Delegate list-serve today. It listed the Diocese of Central New York as one of the top ten dioceses to have had a drop in attendance over the past year. According to the parochial report statistics, the diocese has dropped 10.17 percent over the year 2006-2007. http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/grow_decline_attend_06-07.html We are listed 9th from the bottom in percentage of attendance.

Now, most Episcopal dioceses have experienced a decrease in attendance. In fact there is not a single diocese in the USA that is experiencing growth with the exception of San Joachin which was experiencing a whole reorganization following the deposition of their bishop. The Latin American dioceses are growing by leaps and bounds, but that is to be expected as the Roman Catholic Church loses its dominance in those countries.

Now, I am not like those on the right who believe that attendance is the bell-weather of content with the Church. I believe that noting that nearly all mainline Protestant denomination are experiencing a downturn in attendance is important. Also, those locales which have experienced wide-spread unemployment or significant depopulation should show the marked drop in attendance. That most of our parishes cannot support full-time clergy should be of no surprise to us. We were told back in the ‘80’s that if a parish did not have an income of $250,000 we would not be able to sustain a full-time rector.

But I do not believe that the attendance has dropped because we cannot sustain ourselves as full-time, or because of liberal or conservative theological stances, or because we have a gay bishop in the Church. It is because on the whole, society does not have confidence that the Church can teach faith. They generally see in the Church an organization that has lost touch with reality, that the Church is more interested in preserving the institution than being there for people when they are in need.

A couple of cases in point: When the Southern Tier endured flooding three years ago, there was little or no attention given those who had lost their homes, their places of business or in some cases their livelihood. The was no wide-spread attention given by other parishes in the diocese—in many cases, parts of the diocese did not even know that the flooding had happened. Another incident was recently when a mass shooting captured the attention of the whole country because CNN arrived in Binghamton to broadcast it. There was no attention afforded those of us who lived here by any touch with the diocesan leadership or any concern from any clergy from the diocese. I am not even aware that any diocesan clergy attended or supported the Binghamton community at the city-wide services for hope and healing that other denominations held.

In contrast, before the siege was even over, a Lutheran congregation opened its doors to those who had been traumatized by the event. The Synod office had emailed all the clergy of the area that they were being held in prayer. I had emails from clergy all over NY assuring me and my congregation of their concern and care even though my congregation was 40 miles away.

As a diocese, we in CNY, do not seem to be able to do this. Even when we know that fellow clergy are ill, or bereaved, we don’t take the time to convey our concern. Somehow, somewhere we have lost the ability to support one another in our mission in Christ. When my mother died recently, I received condolences from only one member of the clergy (other than the bishop), a priest I have not yet met.

I do not believe that this disconnect is something new. I believe that we in Central NY have never been very good about supporting one another in our ministries. I believe that there has always been a sense of competition rather than collegiality among us. But whatever it is, we must learn how to do ministry with one another differently. It has been observed that our ability to proclaim Christ is seriously flawed—and more so than other dioceses in the Church.

This is not just the job of the clergy, but I do believe that we must be willing to start it. Parish leadership must be willing to look hard at the image that they are portraying in the name of Christ. The issue is not about stewardship. It isn’t about youth groups or communication. It is about whether we are going to care about one another or not.