I was reading Susan Russel's blog today and was thrilled with a letter posted that was written by Diarmaid MacCullogh in Sunday's Guardian. I must admit that a Scotsman can speak with a graciousness to the purple coated Welshman better than I. But it has that wonderful Celtic bite too it.

Why we should be thankful for Rowan Williams and his church of common sense

The Church of England has taken a pounding from critics, but Rowan Williams has reasons to be cheerful as Christmas approaches, says a leading Anglican historian and commentator
Dear Archbishop Rowan,

Even though I'm not sending Christmas cards this year – ran out of time – you are not going to escape my seasonal circular letter. It is filled not with the record of my many achievements, holidays taken, operations survived and the GCSE results of my imaginary children, but instead has a few tidings of great joy, because you seem to need them at the moment.

You sounded a bit down the other day when you were talking to the Daily Telegraph, complaining that our government assumes "that religion is a problem, an eccentricity practised by oddities, foreigners and minorities". Well, the government is often right about that, so if I were you I wouldn't worry about it too much. I'd be more worried if the government didn't think religion was a problem.

The Telegraph came up with more why-oh-why material last week, publishing the results of a survey indicating that only half those questioned in this country called themselves Christian. I wouldn't pay too much attention to that either. God will no doubt cope. Let me draw on the words of the Blessed Ian Dury and give you some reasons to be cheerful: one, two, three.

The first reason is the established Church of England. It's true, as that Telegraph survey suggests, that it's not what it was, and the change has been astonishingly quick – encompassing my own still not over-prolonged lifetime. When my father, an Anglican parson, moved in the mid-1950s to become rector of a little country parish in Suffolk, there were still old ladies who would curtsy to him in the street, just because he was the rector.

Worldly power has gone out of the established church, and that is why so many of its adherents have fallen away. Thank goodness for that; churches never handle power well. Think what 1950s England was like when you and I were small boys: the stodgy conformity, the sexual hypocrisy, the complacent, monochrome white Anglo-Saxon Protestant culture. The Church of England, in its funny, messy, unwitting way, helped us to get out of that – giving vital help, for instance, to the tentative and much opposed moves in that same decade to decriminalise homosexuality. Compare the grim-faced, negative reaction of the Roman Catholic church in Spain in recent years to new freedoms as democratic Spain has thrown off General Franco's legacy; give public thanks for the Church of England's bumbling liberalism.

The C of E doesn't deliver strident moral or doctrinal judgments to make an easy headline. Journalists and broadcasters often sneer at such indecisiveness, even though rarely would they be inclined to subject themselves to any system of moral stridency. The history of Anglicanism is confused and contradictory, and because the C of E never succeeded in achieving the monopoly over national religion that it undoubtedly sought, the church has become an icon of diversity and plurality for the nation.

Its doctrinal statement, the Thirty-nine Articles of Religion of 1563, is pleasantly anchored in past history, fighting ancient battles. Any Anglican would be happy to acknowledge the importance of such history, while not having to believe personally, for instance, that "the laws of the Realm may punish Christian men with death for heinous and grievous offences". Instead, this established church can be a home for those who go to it to express their doubts as well as their faith. It can be a shelter also for the kaleidoscope of culture, faith and no faith that now makes up our cheerfully diverse nation: an inoculation against the fanatics, both religious and anti-religious.

As the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish withdraw into their own search for national identities, please tell the English, whoever they are, to cherish this ecclesiastical symbol of a rainbow nation. At the moment the English church is afflicted by humourless, tidy-minded souls who want everyone in it to think just like them, and who frequently use the Bible to achieve their aim in the manner of a blunt instrument in an Agatha Christie mystery. Resist them, firm in the faith! Remember what Neil Kinnock achieved against the entryism of Militant in the Labour party of the 1980s. You and archbishop John Sentamu could together witness in the same way for sanity in the C of E.

My second reason to be cheerful is the ordination of women in the Anglican priesthood. Anglicans were the first episcopally governed church grouping to ordain women, way back in the Second World War, in a dire emergency in Japanese-occupied Hong Kong, when the only person available to do one priestly job was a woman, Florence Li Tim-Oi. Loud were the condemnations then, and there has been much angry noise since. But what riches the Church of England has gained since it joined sister-Anglican churches in ordaining women in 1994!

Women priests have faced some extraordinarily childish behaviour from many male counterparts: bullying, condescension and frank undervaluing of their ministry. Besides this has been the glass ceiling that prevented them from being eligible for choice as bishops. Now all that is about to change, and not least among the considerations behind the General Synod's overwhelming vote for change has been the grace so many women have displayed in the face of masculine bad manners. But there is also an everyday grace that women have brought to the ministry: a general reluctance to join in the theological party strife so common among male clergy, who like nothing better than to line up as Anglo-Catholics or evangelicals, as if they were a set of football hooligans out on the streets after the match.

Consider, Archbishop Rowan, that one of the most positive images of the Anglican parish priest in the English media is the now evergreen Vicar of Dibley. There's what the Great English Public think of their women clergy: a bit daft, fond of a box of chocolates or two, but, underneath it all, a source of love and common sense for a community that always has the potential to behave badly. When you think of some of the other stereotypes of priests around at the moment in these islands or beyond, just thank your lucky stars for the folksy silliness of the vicar of Dibley.

My third reason is the election of a bishop in a diocese of the American Episcopal Church in California who happens to be a lesbian. There's maturity for you. Faithful, seriously worshipping Christian folk have made a free decision in an open election that the best candidate for the job is a woman, who has shown by her decisions in life that fidelity, love and honesty are demanded by her practice of the Christian gospel.

These Californian Anglicans are grown-up enough to believe that it is entirely irrelevant that such fidelity, love and honesty are expressed in a same-sex relationship rather than a heterosexual one. Perhaps they have come to the conclusion that it would be a strange sort of supreme being who cared that much for a particular configuration of genitalia in her servants.

The Episcopal Church of the United States of America has been subjected to continuous abuse and carping from fellow Anglicans, attempted poaching of its churches by dissidents and demands that it curb its understanding of love and sexuality to fit in with the sexual mores of an entirely different society. So American Anglicans have decided that enough is enough: that they should just get on with being Anglicans and elect the best person for the job.

It would be nice if the election of bishops in the Church of England were that democratic and so effectively took into consideration the wishes of all the diocesan faithful. That's a job to be tackled in Lambeth Palace once the mince pies have gone down and the archiepiscopal sherry decanter put back in the sideboard.

Meanwhile, I hope that you may rejoice at Christmas in this multiform church over which you so graciously and thoughtfully preside – give a welcome to the continuing unobtrusive and untrumpeted trickle of converts, not least from your sister church of Rome, join in the worship at one of your cathedrals, so packed to the gills, so well cared for and cherished as never before in their history, and enjoy the heritage of beautiful music that is one of the treasures of Anglicanism.
The Christmas story may be expressed in biblical forms that are not very good history and which some of your congregations may find difficult to take literally, but Christmas music can sweep past the puzzles of words to celebrate a new human life, weak, vulnerable and humble, which is glorified precisely for that. You will know the saying of Thomas Aquinas, which a wise old Dominican friar once quoted to me over a great deal of Irish whiskey, that God is not the answer, he is the question. As long as your church, and all other churches, go on asking the question, they will never die.

Diarmaid

Diarmaid MacCulloch is professor of the history of the church at Oxford University. His latest book is A History of Christianity: the First Three Thousand years (Allen Lane).

Good Church Order

Often times congregations are unaware of something called ‘Good Church Order.’ It is a manner of operating a congregation or a synod or diocese in a manner that is workable for all. Bishops, priests and pastors and deacons are all responsible for good church order. Some of Church Order is published as rules of order, by-laws or canons but others are merely understood as custom or recognized as ‘polite’ behavior. Some of these customs bridge denominational lines. One of these is: “a pastor does not return to his/her former congregation without the express invitation of the current pastor.”

The social dynamics of churches are often volatile things. Given the political climate of our times, it is not surprising that the emotional climate of most congregations in the US is precarious at best. There are many things that upset folks in our churches these days and the management of good church order is often more like riding a bucking bronco than anything else. The surprise entrance of a former pastor into a current congregation is difficult and often becomes an unsettling element in the parish’s life. When a former pastor attended a church event and asked the present chair of council if he could preach that Sunday, I was stunned. Not only had he ignored the good order of the church, he had crossed the boundaries of the development of affection that were trying to be built by me in my current parish. He wasn’t being mean or malevolent. He was just trying to touch that missing sense of love he had known while pastor.

One of the sacrifices that clergy must make in their lives as priests and pastors is the friendship with those they have served. It is the MOST difficult sacrifice I have had to make in order to be a priest. I work hard at the friendships in the pastor/parishioner relationships in my congregations. I try to give my all to these people in Christ’s name. I spend myself for them. That is not only my job; it is my calling. Most of the time, that service, love, affection and respect in loving them is reciprocated. I get loved back and that feels wonderful. It is in that reciprocal love Christ is most often identified and glorified. It is fulfilling, healing to others and myself. It is the most Christ-like way to lead the community of the faithful.

However, when I leave that position as pastor or rector, that particular dynamic of love and reciprocity is ended for good church order. I cannot expect to give or get the kind of love that I did when I was leading the congregation. It is one of the down sides of my vocation. Even if I have spent my whole life in one congregation, I cannot expect to depend upon those friendships when I leave because those friendships must be reoriented to the new pastor or rector. It is my duty to those I have loved and served not to return. It is my duty to cause no undue tension in the congregation or focus the attention on my needs for love and friendship. It sometimes means that I am lonely after I have left a church. I want to say “My friends can change their relationship from pastor to friend.” But quite frankly most can’t.

When I leave a church there are voids in my life that hurt unmercifully. But that is a sacrifice I must make for good church order. It is the final act of loving for a parish I can do. And even if my successor is a numbskull, a pitiful preacher, or a unloving SOB or not even there yet, I cannot step in to that parish, or even have friends in that parish, until that present pastor has his/her feet on the ground and has developed the reciprocal love that is necessary for his/her leadership in that congregation.

Diocesan Convention

I have tried to start this post several times. Being a true extrovert, I have to discuss my thoughts before they have any meaning. This is tedious for my friends who are introverts and whose thoughts come fully-formed from the head of Zeus. But I have tried to get a handle on Central NY’s convention and it has eluded me.

First of all, there was far and away more energy at diocesan convention this year than I have noticed since 2002. Most of that energy emanated from ++Katharine Jefferts-Shori’s presence with us. But for the clergy, there was another level of energy that began with the funeral for Jim Jensen+ the night before convention began. The funeral was majestic and beautiful and healed some of the pain of the loss of Jim+. There was a sense that at least we could come together for the sake of his parish and his family and there was something immensely right about that. But ++Katharine had a gentleness about her that exuded calmness yet with a significant resolve about her to address the IMPORTANT issues facing the Church today. In some way she focused us on the mission of the Church in our presence and in our area. She shared with us the hope of Christ that she sees throughout the Church. It was refreshing and reinvigorating.

But once again the substance of convention consisted of word-smithing some changes in the canons. There were no statements of conscience about the war in Afghanistan. There was no discussion of the draconian measures sponsored by the Church of Uganda towards LGBT persons. There was no comment about unemployment in the upstate area. There was no engagement whatsoever in the lives of the people of upstate at all. That there was no discussion about the budget is not surprising because there seems to be so little life in the diocese that we cannot even float programs that do not require funding. It doesn’t cost money to love one another or share our love of Christ Jesus. But for some reason, there is no program.

The Eucharistic liturgy, however, was wonderful. I am still not pleased with the canceling of services in our parishes in order to have a big service that could not accommodate all who desired to come. But the actual service was quite well-done. The service followed the BCP. The music was accessible by all who attended. And the sound of the voices raised in praise of God filled the heart and soul. And the choir was stupendous. We all knew we had been to Church.

Having worked with the Lutherans for the past few years I have come to understand how important a musical tradition is to a large body of people is. Episcopalians and Lutheran both SING. We have rich but different musical traditions that provide the glue that holds our liturgy together. The combined choir was an important piece of that worship. The choir directors of the Cathedral, St. David’s, Dewitt and Grace, Utica provided us with a sense of the musical tradition of TEC that many of us in smaller congregations do not get. I do hope that this kind of attention to the liturgy was not just because of the presence of the PB. I hope that we have learned that we can field a good choir and that such collaboration is the kind of ministry that the Church can do with little cost but with great reward. I would hope that we could also sing hymns at the various offices that are celebrated during convention. But most of all, Kudos to all those who planned and participated in the liturgy!

But we have a long way to go to heal the fear and distrust that has permeated this diocese. Much of that distrust came about during a phenomenon that has gripped our whole communion. While we struggled with the issues of biblical interpretation, human sexuality, ideology, theology many were wounded on both sides of the issues. Time does not heal those wounds. They need to be discussed in open forums—we do not need to recapitulate the issues; we need to touch the wounds with the incarnational presence of Christ.

The big kafuffle on HOB/D the last few days has been on the draconian measures that have been proposed by the Anglican Church of Uganda against LGBT folk. There has been a hue and cry raised demanding that the Presiding Bishop or the Executive Council make a statement condemning this attempt to criminalize or even execute LGBT people in that country. The PB was asked about this at the CNY diocesan convention just this weekend. She explained that the situation is much more volatile in Uganda than we understand in the US. She also recognizes that the legislation which is being presented there is being underwritten by ultra-conservative elements in the US. I have been impressed with the ability of members of HOB/D who have combed online places where the wider communion issues are being monitored. It is amazing that this issue has become such a hot topic all over the world, and how we see the underhandedness of it all.

All too often I separate church from state these days. Part of this comes from having taught in public school. We were well-trained to make hard lines between ‘politics’ and ‘church.’ I have even done so in the pulpit—being clear that my opinion would not endanger the 503c status of my parish. I like to think that the people in the pews have the sense to vote the way that they want to no matter what I say. I try to name Christian principles from the pulpit and let the people decide for themselves.

But I have seen over the past 10 years the kind of meddling in politics by folks in the name of ‘church’ that have made my skin crawl. This legislation in Uganda is being sponsored not just by the Church of Uganda, but with big money of super right-wing elements that are not Anglican or Episcopalian. It is being underwritten by groups with a Screwtape mentality who would disband American democracy for right-wing theocracy. It is the continued work of IRD and those who were the object of the Chapman Report that shows that this is one of the most diabolical efforts to undermine not only the love of Christ in the Church but also the basic governmental structures of our nation and other democratic nations of the world. These efforts are not by upstanding groups. They are fear-mongering groups that heighten anxiety and make the emotional strain so difficult that God-loving people give up rather than stand against this kind of perverse thinking.

I used to read the books of Robert Ludlum thinking that they were fiction. But the more that I see the effects of the scheming of these small groups of very wealthy people trying to manipulate my Church and my nation, I more I wonder if there is not some kind of cabal trying to take over our minds. I do not believe that this is just the mere paranoid feelings of someone in her sixties. Whatever it is, I am not one who is about to give in to them. +Jack Spong said that he remained an Episcopalian in the face of the neo-conservatives simply because he was unwilling to allow them to take over the Church. I’m with +Jack on this one. We need to expose these devious attempts of this cabal for what they are. I am really not willing to call them ‘conservative’. They are not just a matter of being on the right of a continuum on which I stand at the left. These groups are here to destroy, not just discuss another opinion. They are here to control, not merely offer a different way to skin the cat.

It is interesting that it has been LGBT issues that have flushed these “Controllers” out. That these groups come to the fore at the beginning of the fall of patriarchy doesn’t surprise me. Their anxiety began to be seen as women began to step into previously male-dominated positions in medicine/science, academia, politics and the Church. But the real clincher was when LGBT people began to take their rightful places in business, Church and politics. This is clearly not a liberal/conservative issue. It is a matter of POWER and not power that can be accessed by the democratic process. In many cases it is family power—large, extremely wealthy families that “know best” for the world’s society. They have taken on the veil of Christianity or Islam, or “Family Values” to legitimize their grasp for world power. And I think that such groups are not just factions who have different opinions. They are clearly those whose dogma is contrary to both Christianity and the rule of the people. I guess I am not going to retire after all.

(It is interesting that even the word "Cabal" has been taken over by the rightwingers -- just google image the word)

Wow!

I was prepared to be impressed with The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts-Schori, and I was. Her presence at the Central NY diocesan convention was marked by listening and sharing. She welcomed questions, but she also raised our eyes to what was going on even in our area. She gave credit to those who deserved it but also called from us the kind of ministry that we are all called to.
On Friday night she met with the clergy and their spouses for happy hour and dinner. She is a small woman who is going to have to deal with osteoporosis, I think, as she spends herself in the service of the Church. She said she hadn’t been home in two week and hadn’t seen her husband in three. That kind of job tears at one. I give thanks that she is willing to give of her self in service to us. She is incredibly frank but with a wonderful sense of quiet humor that marks the best of us. She has a gentleness that covers incredible strength that is rooted in God.
The first question she was asked by a spouse was if she was going to comment publicly on the situation in Uganda where there is legislation pending on the criminalization and even the death penalty for gays. Her explanation was measured and revealing. She has listened to the LGBT people of Uganda and refrained to do so because it would be pouring oil on the fire. Her comment on behalf of TEC would be seen as one more attempt at colonial censure. But she did say that she would be trying to address the monied interests in the US who fund the ultra-conservative efforts of the Mimms crowd and who are funding much of the anti LGBT element in Africa and the UK. She understands how communications in other places are grasped and is clearly informed about how to make her point. It is clear that she has good resources to call upon when she needs to make decisions.
Her non-anxious presence is amazing. More than the last two PB’s she can address and listen to those who are opposed to her without becoming defensive. She can be as welcoming to conservative or liberal alike. But she seemingly does not take a back step when addressing the tough issues. I must admit that I was not happy with her moratorium on LGBT consecrations in 2006. But her leadership in such places as San Joachin, Pittsburgh and Ft. Worth has been steadfast and tough. Her leadership in CNY was collaborative but not flashy. She is outwardly an exceedingly humble person. She knows she stands on the shoulders of the women who were ordained in ‘74 and ‘75. She knows that her experience of the episcopacy is predicated by +Barbara Harris and +Jane Dixon and others. But I think that she brings her own sense of spirituality to the position with a kind of flinty, no-nonsense womanhood that the House of Bishops has needed.
She has no aversion to calling the baptized of the diocese to a taking back of the ministry of the Church. She does not mince words or is she “nice” for the sake of being “nice”. She is filled with stories about how CNY is not unique in the Church because of our shrinking congregations or financial troubles. But she conveys the hope that we can, as has other places throughout the Church, be about the ministry of Jesus Christ despite our difficulties. She has, in one weekend, called the people of CNY to exercise their ministry, to live out Christ’s presence in our lives, and to not wait for approbation of clergy or diocesan leadership. But most of all ++Katharine made herself available to us. She is not in some ivory tower in NYC. She stood with a glass of wine in groups of us and chatted with us, entertained questions, told stories of those in other parts of TEC and was interested in how we were living out our lives in TEC. She has been in 90 of the 110 diocese of TEC in a mere 4 and that says something about her willingness to be present to us.
Both + Skip and +Ted Gulick have commented to me on the extraordinary sense of the Holy Spirit when ++Katharine was elected in 2006. I have heard others say the same thing online. I have always understood the presence of the Holy Spirit to underlie the workings of our conventions. And I feel God has given us in ++Katharine the kind of leadership that the HOB and TEC needs at this time. This does not mean that I think she has some kind of magical quality to rule. I believe that we have in her an extraordinary person who can and does access others and God to make decisions that serve the Church. She has gifts for inclusion that cannot be denied. It says to me that TEC is in good hands and that we can trust God to strengthen her for the next six years. But she also gives us an image of what Christian leadership can be in all orders. By her very presence she calls us to inclusion, to peaceful discussion, to educated and informed approaches to faith and to strength to proclaim a Gospel that is willing to explore new ways of living out the Christian message of hope.

TZEDEK

The ordination of a sister priest is always a joyous event. But Susan Slaughter’s ordination in Ft. Worth was over the top. It was such a statement of rightness. A couple of weeks ago a I preached on the Hebrew word “tzedek”—the word that we often translate “righteous”. But one of the understandings of that word is harmony. Israelis use this word to describe when an engine is ‘in tune’ or musical instruments are keyed appropriately.

The ordination of the first woman in Ft. Worth was a commitment to harmony in a place which has been dissonant since the formation of the diocese in 1982. Susan’s ordination was not any more important or symbolic than the ordinations of thousands of other women since 1974, but this act speaks to the whole of the Church about the call to “rightness” or the sense of balance or harmony that we have failed at over the past 10-15 years in the Church. The reorganized Diocese of Ft. Worth has taken on the responsibility of righting itself. It is taking the seriously the call of servant ministry. It is taking seriously the call to living out one’s baptismal call to ministry in all orders. And it is fiercely saying to itself, ‘we will not allow ourselves to be duped into thinking that the bishop knows best’ when he/she has failed to listen to the needs of the people. It no longer is saying to the Church ‘we have no need of you’. It is saying that Christ is here and we want to live out that message that Christ is alive and well.

The future of the Diocese is still fraught with financial and legal battles that will be no fun. But now women will be part of the counsel of the clerical order. LGBT Christians are part of the visible Church now. African-American and Latino Episcopalians now are vocal and viable parts of the ministry of the diocese. There is no want of Christian clarity and strength in it. There is no loss of faithfulness in this bunch of North Texans who have endured all manner of discouragement for the sake of Jesus. And perhaps they will be able to witness to the rest of the Church what it means to claim the calling to ‘tzedek’ that we all need.

No Tickee-No Washee

Word comes from the Diocese today that you can’t get into the Convention Eucharist without a ticket. And there are color coded tickets I am told—one color if you get in the room with the Presiding Bishop and one color for those who are cast into outer darkness in another room with closed-camera connections.

First of all the idea of tickets to attend the Eucharist is beyond belief. I wonder what Christ would have said to the 5,000? I think he DID say something to the disciples about that and it sure as heck wasn’t tickets!

I also wonder what would have happened if we had planned far enough ahead when asking the PB to have gotten larger accommodations? Would having the Convention Eucharist at another large church been a possibility? What about inviting the PB at another time when she could meet with the clergy and laity of the diocese? How about Clergy Conference like the Lutherans did? What about a gym somewhere? Or perhaps we could have invited her during the summer to an outdoor service at Thornfield—ah yes, we would have had to mow the grass!

So now we have Standing Room Only for a service in which we have invited the whole diocese by making sure that all the clergy are at convention….

Once again Piss-Pore-Planning seems to have overwhelmed us.

The PB is Coming/The PB is Coming

The Most Reverend Katharine Jefferts-Schori the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church is coming to Central NY for Diocesan Convention. I am anxious to hear her speak of the Church in person. I have, of course, heard snippets of her speeches on line and read her thoughts over the past three years. I am somewhat in awe of her because of how she has handled herself in the face of a badly broken and split church. The past three years have been some of the most difficult in the history of The Protestant Episcopal Church/TEC. At the same time I have not appreciated the moratorium on LGBT ordinations and consecrations from 2006-2009.

From various bishops I have heard the story of her election in 2006 that seemed to be a real movement of the Holy Spirit in the HOB. I look forward to hearing her express her hopes for the Church and most of all how she envision the evolving new Christianity that seems to be emerging at present. Certainly in this diocese we need to hear something other than the survivor mentality that seems occupy the thinking of the diocese or the exclusivity of some of the clergy of the diocese.
This welcoming of the PB is a chance for her to share with us in CNY what is going on not only in the whole of TEC, but also with what is facing us as a part of the Anglican Communion. I am hopeful to hear her reaction to the Anglican Covenant.

I am not sure that her purpose is to listen to us; diocesan convention is not the venue for that in this diocese. I am afraid her presence among us is going to be one of visiting dignitary rather than a fellow Christian on the same journey. Visiting dignitaries often serve to enthuse to a new vision. But in this diocese there is no vision, no goal, and no direction to enthuse to. What her presence may show is how vital the Church is in other places and heightens the paucity of that vitality here. Her presence may show how deeply lost we are in this diocese and how isolated we are becoming because the witness to Christ is so insipid here. I believe I will see clearly how poorly our diocese shapes up in comparison with other areas of the Church.

I am horrified by the lack of sensible expectations for the service that ++Katharine will be preaching. It seems that little thought was given to the logistics. I fear it will be a nightmare of who can access the PB and who may not. Once again the reality of the PB’s presence was not thought through. I do believe that many people will expect to be able to discuss the status of the Church with her since there is so little opportunity to do so in the diocese. That expectation will not be satisfied given the lack of room and lack of thought put into her visit.

Districts:

Once again the diocesan office in Syracuse is trying to change diocesan structures without consulting with those who live and move and have their beings in the diocese. News comes that the council of Deans is looking to dissolve the Ithaca-Owego-Cortland District without a bye-your-leave to those who work or live in that District.

One might ask the rationale behind the development of deaneries or districts. Originally the district was a way of attending to the needs of an area of the diocese. Clergy and laity would meet with some regularity to support the ministry of Jesus Christ. Clergy met to support one another in their vocation. They were also ways of disseminating information from the diocesan office and national church. One hundred years ago these districts revolved around the main mode of transportation, mainly train lines so that clergy could be mobile. I know that St. Peter’s, Bainbridge and St. Ann’s, Afton were yoked in the 19th century simply because the train ran regularly between the two. Later as automobiles became the mode of travel, districts developed along the routes of highways. The districts were not developed as extension of the diocesan office, but as ways of gathering the clergy and laity in discrete areas together to extend the mission of Christ. The districts were to serve the laity and clergy of the diocese, not necessarily the bishop. And deans, until just recently were elected by the districts that they served.

It seems that today the diocesan office would realign districts simply because they can’t find like-minded clergy to be dean. Rather than have the districts be a listening post for the bishop, the diocesan office would rather the district be broken up than attend to the needs of the people of the district. Once more I hear the goal of “flattening the hierarchy” being trod upon by those who are appointed rather than elected to office. Once more it is for the diocesan office that changes are made, not the needs of those in the pews who pay the salaries of all of us. If there is one thing that serves to distance the laity from the diocese is for the diocese to make unilateral decisions affecting them.

It is probably an appropriate thing to review the boundaries of all the districts in the diocese. Travel patterns and communal patterns have change over the past 100 years. Perhaps Owego should be in the Binghamton district; however, the people of that parish should be the ones who make that decision rather than those in far-off Syracuse or deans from the North Country who have never driven the back roads of the Southern Tier. Perhaps Courtland and Ithaca and Whitney Point have more in common than Whitney Point has with Binghamton, but it should be the parish that should make that decision. To eliminate a district because of politics is an unworthy reason. To append such a place as Candor or Speedsville or even Ithaca to Elmira is nonsensical and Cortland doesn’t have much in common with either Binghamton or Syracuse and would work hardship on clergy and laity alike.

There are clergy in Ithaca-Cortland who are willing to be a part of the college of deans. There are clergy who are more than willing to work with the bishop in the Ithaca-Cortland District. They have their take on the needs of their parishes and area that is needed by the diocesan office. The district is quite capable of providing capable leadership to the district and the diocese. It is time to re-think these actions.

The Camel's Nose is under the tent, Benny

I have been pondering what the action by the Vatican with regards to setting up an Anglican rite within Roman Catholicism. As one who “swam the Thames” I know that the Roman Catholic Church is really where many of the ultra-conservative Anglo-Catholics belong. They have been praying for the reunification of the Church and believe it to be the one true church. I wish those who go to Rome well. I have never understood why they wanted to “Romanize” the Anglican Communion.

Now, I can enjoy a good high church liturgy with the best of them, but I have often found the Anglo-Catholic proclivities of some mere aping of Rome and not of much substance liturgically or theologically. But that’s me. I loved the Roman Catholic Church when I was a part of it. It taught me a love for signs and sacraments, tradition and solidarity. It taught me about community and Christ’s predilection for the poor. But Vatican II also taught me how to find signs and sacraments in the more mundane existence of life for which I will be eternally grateful.
What finally drew me to Anglicanism was a growing respect for the place of the Incarnation in my life, awareness that God calls women and lgbt persons to the ordained ministry, and an understanding that God’s church can be governed by all the faithful, not just misogynistic clerics.

Since the 16th century there have been those who have wandered back and forth across the divide that separates Rome and Canterbury. When it is a person of note such as a Henry Newman or a Matthew Fox or Fr. Cutie, one side or the other touts a triumphalism that is not worthy of either side. To swim the Tiber or the Thames is merely the walk of Christians trying to live out their faith within a context of community that speaks most clearly the faith they have come to know.

I felt that the cabal (both lay and ordained) that ran the Diocese of Ft. Worth should have gone to Rome 35 years ago. But I always felt that there was an underlying classism that permeated that group and it was unwilling to submit to the Roman leadership in that area which was so serious about its commitment to the poor Hispanic community that it served. I will be surprised to find the Ikerites submitting to Roman authority in the US. In Europe or even San Joachim, perhaps, but not in Texas.



But I think this action by Pope Benedict will have ramifications that the Roman Catholic Church is not prepared to face: First and foremost is that Anglicans’ understanding of obedience is quite different from Romanism. Obedience is the primary virtue of Roman Catholicism. It is deeply embedded in the Catholic soul. To question authority in the Roman Church is just not tolerated. And no matter how much Iker and his followers say they believe in clerical authority, the mere fact that they have become schismatic is a sign that they cannot tolerate the kind of obedience that Rome not only expects, but cradle Catholics have sucked in with mother’s milk. This kind of obedience goes way past the conservative/liberal issues of present day. When there is a liberal turn once again, how will this Anglican bunch deal with a liberal authority in Rome? This Anglican uniate won’t have any say in electing a new pope, you can bet on that.

Secondly, I don’t think that the pope has realized what kind of a camel nose will be under the tent when married clergy are permitted in Western churches. I remember back in my Roman days the discussion on married clergy. This was the time when the permanent deaconate was being proposed. Most of the opinion was that married clergy would bankrupt the Church. I thought at the time that that was a pretty poor reason to deny ordination to married men, but we were hoping that it would develop into the ordination of celibate women. But then the misogyny of Roman authority raised its ugly head in the encyclical on women in 1979 and it was clear that would not happen.

Will this new Anglican rite mean that married men in the future be accepted as candidates for holy orders in the Roman church? Will celibacy be seen still as a “holier” way to live? Certainly the image of monastic life no longer prevails within the Roman church so the witness of faithful married priests may upset the whole apple cart for the Roman Catholicism. And the married clergy are going to be unprepared to be dominated by the deeply closeted gay clergy that are so prevalent among Roman clergy.

This sop to discontented Anglicans is a move by the conservatives now in power in Rome. But a married clergy in the midst of Roman clergy who have not chose celibacy but have had it forced upon them will continue to cause a riff among the ordained. This camel will be in the tent in no time and will cause more internal strife within the Roman Church that Benedict intends. Knowing how Rome deals with conflict, this Anglican uniate church may have another “swim” in its future.

On Communion

In the diocesan newspaper of the Diocese of Louisiana, Bishop Charles Jenkins published this. “On Communion”

I shall never forget the day the tea arrived. Cases and cases of tea,
shipped to us by the Bishop of Ceylon. More tea than I have ever seen
at one time donated to us in the wake of Hurricane Katrina.

I remember my amazement when at "Community Congress 1" the realization
came upon me that many of the volunteers working there were from
London and came as part of the efforts to help of the Church of England.

How strengthened I was when Bishop Josiah Fearon of the Diocese of
Kaduna in the Church of Nigeria phoned to say that the entire Diocese
was praying for us and he and a group were trying to find a way to
come to us. Eventually, Bishop Fearon came and he came to see about me.

The amount of the check may have been small, but how grateful we were
for the ordinand in the Church of England who asked that the loose
offering at his ordination be sent to us. That check with tens of
thousands of others has made a difference.

"Like a deer caught in the headlights" was how someone described me
after the levees failed. Then a call came (I wonder how he got
through) from Rob Radtke at Episcopal Relief and Development asking
what we needed. How the heck did I know? I told Rob we needed him.
Though brand spanking new to the job, he managed to get on a plane and
come. He brought with him Courtney Cowart and Peter Gudaitis.

It was humbling to be asked by the Archbishop of Canterbury during the
Lambeth Conference of 2008 to search out the Bishops from Burma so
affected by tsunami and pray with them. Of course, they had been
praying for us.

When evil stands before me, I stand not alone, but this fractious,
schismatic, heretical, wonderful, faithful, sacrificing, Christ-like
Communion stands beside me, before me, behind me, and above me. As
lonely as the past four years have been, even in dark nights of
depression and doubt, I have not been alone. The last phone message I
had before the system went down was from the Rev'd Susan Russell.

The tabernacle would not open in St. Luke's Church, New Orleans, when
Frank and Phoebe Griswold and I moved aside trees to get into the
church. We had Holy Communion there in the muck, mold, and mud thanks
to Senior Warden Elvia James who managed to get the door open to the
tabernacle. That Holy Communion pointed me towards our Communion.

Communion is not only about right believing and right acting. When our
lives were in the ditch by the Jericho Road, when we had been robbed
of life's dignity and much of the material of life, our Samaritan was
the Anglican Communion. Rich and poor, orthodox or whatever,
conservative and liberal, they came to us. They gave us of what they
had and all prayed for us.

This Communion that I have experienced is the Church forced by
circumstance to be what I think God has created His Church to be. I
warn those who would break down and destroy this tender vessel that
they are on the side of the enemy. Whether the iconoclasts be from the
left, the right, or from the don't care side of things, let the
warning be heard, Communion matters. Communion is not simply a matter
of affiliation, or of like-minds; for some of us Communion is life or
death. Communion is more than a man-made Covenant between us. We are
called by God the Father into a greater Covenant that we dare not
break. We are called to be here, together, one, broken, messy and yet
strong, faithful, and rejoicing in the Lord.

The issues are many, the disagreements and disappointments many, and
the opportunity to each do our own thing (which we suppose to be of
God who blesses all our doings) is enticing. Such is not real religion.

Yours in Christ,

The Rt. Rev. Charles E. Jenkins

Response: I wrote +Charles this morning thanking him for this article and sharing my experience in MS while doing relief work.


Dear Bishop Jenkins,

Today Bishop Righter posted your statement "On Communion" on Hob/d. We have never met but I was one of those many volunteers who came following Katrina--I went to MS because that was as close as I could get to New Orleans that October. I stayed two months and wore out a couple of knees in the process, but I have never experienced "Church" like I did at Camp Coast Care. I want to thank you for your wonderful communication about the world-wide Anglican Communion. I had a similar experience.




At the time I was very angry. I had experienced the backlash of +Robinson's election. I am a lesbian priest and have been a vowed celibate since I joined the Ursulines in New Orleans in the early seventies. The fear of having a gay rector had been raised and I lost my parish. I was not permitted to work in my diocese after having been a priest for almost 30 years. I went to help along the Gulf Coast because I couldn’t figure out how to exercise the priesthood to which I had been called by God.

I worked with those who came from all over the country to help people we didn't know, who were connected only by compassion. Each night when we arrived back from a day of digging people out of debris, copperheads and mold, we would gather for evening prayer. We prayed for the families that we had served. We prayed for those at home. We prayed each in our own way. We were Episcopalians and Lutherans and every other denomination. The BCP served to unite us and gave us structure in our prayer. We were also Jewish, Muslim and Buddhist. We all gathered to unite us to give us strength for another day to carry on. It was a sense of community that I have never had in religious life or parish life. It was a glimpse of what I hope heaven will be like without the damage and loss that gave us the reason to come together.



I doubt if you or I could find a reason to agree on much theologically or politically (I, being a faithful graduate of EDS ). But that is not the point. If God can call us into such a rich fellowship in times of abject humiliation, I do believe that we can come together in the name of Christ and the Church. It is Christ's communion, not the Anglican, Episcopal, or whatever. It sometimes takes "acts of God" to bring us to that place where we find our common ground. You found the common ground in Christ as shown forth from your brothers and sisters of the Anglican Communion. I too found that common ground in Christ through the work of the anglican communion.

I am distressed that there might be a two-tier communion--that is not a communion but a heirarchy. But whatever the way that is decided, you and I, for whatever reason can never say that we are not part of one another. We have met the common ground of Jesus in the midst of the flood waters. We have known the love of Christ through the hands of those who share that communion from all over the world. We will never be the same. Thanks be to God.

I believe...

…I believe I experience God as life fully lived, as love wastefully given, as being completely realized. I cannot tell you or anyone else who or what God is. I can only describe my experience. I may be delusional. Lots of religious people are, but I don't think so.

I join the mystics in saying that I think I am part of what God is. God lives in me, loves through me and empowers me to escape that drive to survive that is in every living thing in order to give my life away. That is the Christ role and I think it is also the role that his disciples are called to model.

So I am drawn by God beyond my boundaries and I perceive that God becomes real when I enter into the task of living and loving and being. This means that it doesn't occur to me that I am alone with no one to whom to pray. This makes me rather a deeply infused, God-intoxicated human being who no longer has the words to describe the God in who I live and move and have my being, but it does not even occur to me to doubt the reality of that which I experience, but can never define…. Bishop John Shelby Spong

I have spent the past 5 days at clergy conferences. Two days with the Episcopalians and 3 days with the Lutherans. The Episcopal clergy conference had a speaker on philosophy and theology and the Lutheran conference spotlighted the Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, an amazing person who is centered into holding the ELCA together despite votes from the Church Wide Assembly that bode realignment or schism.



Five days of clergy conference is too long. It is hard to keep one’s sight on the parochial experience of the people in the pew when constantly called to hear the experience of those far away. It will be interesting to hear Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori when she comes in November to Central NY and how she works at providing a vision for the whole of the Church.




I have always been a churchwoman. The Church has always been the place where I lived and moved and had my being. It has given focus for my life and hope for the future in Christ. But where the rubber hits the road for me is the parish, the lived out experience of how Christ calls me to live my faith in Jesus with the others that I see every day.

The deliberations both at General Convention 2009 and the Church Wide Assembly of the ELCA produced legislation that has given affirmation to me and the ministry I have participated in for the past 40 years. I should be deliriously happy. But I must admit that I am just plain TIRED!

I have worked all my life for civil rights—for African-Americans, for Latinos, for women and for LGBT folks. But that is not where Christ is. I have labored to make sure that their voices could be heard both in society and in the Church and yet no one seems to get it. I feel like Jesus when he is trying to teach the disciples and they simply don’t get his meaning of his parables. The issue is not about inclusion—it is about turning our lives over. It isn’t about rights—it is about becoming lesser and Christ becoming greater. It isn’t about what makes us Lutheran, or Episcopalian, or Presbyterian or Methodist or Holiness. It is about, as Bishop Spong says, loving wastefully; it is about giving myself away.

As I approach that magic age of 65—a time when retirement is at hand, I realize that I no longer want to hold up the Church. I want to share that “God-intoxicated” life that I know. I can no longer describe that Holy One that lives in me. I have no rules or plan to pass it on to others. My words and actions fail me when I think that I am preaching so eloquently the love I know in my innermost parts.

What will the Church be for the future? I don’t know. I just pray that it will continue to be a place where we can gather to hear the stories about those who have loved God: Abraham who left his home to follow God, Joseph who had been cast out by his own brothers yet welcomed them when they came to Egypt, Moses who found God in a burning bush and who led his people out of slavery, Jeremiah who spoke the power of God even though he was young, John Baptist who knew that repentance was the way the heart could open itself to God and Jesus who laid down his life for us and all those who have come after him to teach us of God’s love. Will there be a Lutheran Church? Probably. Will there be an Episcopal Church? Probably. But does that mean anything in the long run? I doubt it. What will be important to us for the future is whether we can give ourselves away.

What Now?

…I believe I experience God as life fully lived, as love wastefully given, as being completely realized. I cannot tell you or anyone else who or what God is. I can only describe my experience. I may be delusional. Lots of religious people are, but I don't think so.

I join the mystics in saying that I think I am part of what God is. God lives in me, loves through me and empowers me to escape that drive to survive that is in every living thing in order to give my life away. That is the Christ role and I think it is also the role that his disciples are called to model.

So I am drawn by God beyond my boundaries and I perceive that God becomes real when I enter into the task of living and loving and being. This means that it doesn't occur to me that I am alone with no one to whom to pray. This makes me rather a deeply infused, God-intoxicated human being who no longer has the words to describe the God in who I live and move and have my being, but it does not even occur to me to doubt the reality of that which I experience, but can never define…. Bishop John Shelby Spong



I have spent the past 5 days at clergy conferences. Two days with the Episcopalians and 3 days with the Lutherans. The Episcopal clergy conference had a speaker on philosophy and theology and the Lutheran conference spotlighted the Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson, an amazing person who is centered into holding the ELCA together despite votes from the Church Wide Assembly that bode realignment or schism.

Five days of clergy conference is too long. It is hard to keep one’s sight on the parochial experience of the people in the pew when constantly called to hear the experience of those far away. It will be interesting to hear Episcopal Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts-Schori when she comes in November to Central NY and how she works at providing a vision for the whole of the Church.




I have always been a churchwoman. The Church has always been the place where I lived and moved and had my being. It has given focus for my life and hope for the future in Christ. But where the rubber hits the road for me is the parish, the lived out experience of how Christ calls me to live my faith in Jesus with the others that I see every day.

The deliberations both at General Convention 2009 and the Church Wide Assembly of the ELCA produced legislation that has given affirmation to me and the ministry I have participated in for the past 40 years. I should be deliriously happy. But I must admit that I am just plain TIRED!

I have worked all my life for civil rights—for African-Americans, for Latinos, for women and for LGBT folks. But that is not where Christ is. I have labored to make sure that their voices could be heard both in society and in the Church and yet no one seems to get it. I feel like Jesus when he is trying to teach the disciples and they simply don’t get his meaning of his parables. The issue is not about inclusion—it is about turning our lives over. It isn’t about rights—it is about becoming lesser and Christ becoming greater. It isn’t about what makes us Lutheran, or Episcopalian, or Presbyterian or Methodist or Holiness. It is about, as Bishop Spong says, loving wastefully; it is about giving myself away.

As I approach that magic age of 65—a time when retirement is at hand, I realize that I no longer want to hold up the Church. I want to share that “God-intoxicated” life that I know. I can no longer describe that Holy One that lives in me. I have no rules or plan to pass it on to others. My words and actions fail me when I think that I am preaching so eloquently the love I know in my innermost parts.

What will the Church be for the future? I don’t know. I just pray that it will continue to be a place where we can gather to hear the stories about those who have loved God: Abraham who left his home to follow God, Joseph who had been cast out by his own brothers yet welcomed them when they came to Egypt, Moses who found God in a burning bush and who led his people out of slavery, Jeremiah who spoke the power of God even though he was young, John Baptist who knew that repentance was the way the heart could open itself to God and Jesus who laid down his life for us and all those who have come after him to teach us of God’s love. Will there be a Lutheran Church? Probably. Will there be an Episcopal Church? Probably. But does that mean anything in the long run? I doubt it. What will be important to us for the future is whether we can give ourselves away.

Two-tier thinking

Listening to many from the ELCA talk about the momentous decision of their Church Wide Assembly to ordain partnered gay and lesbian clergy, it has been interesting to compare their experience with those of the Episcopal Church (TEC). I watched as that vote came in and heard an audible gasp from the assembly as the report of the vote was given. I don’t think that they expected it to pass. Since then on a list serve I follow, I have listened to many in pain about the decision agonize as to whether they were going to stay in ELCA. But when I ask them, can we meet at the altar, they all say yes. It is Christ where we all meet.



Yet with the Anglican Communion, the Archbishop of Canterbury wants to make of us a two-tiered communion. We have Anglicans who cannot meet at the altar. The neo-conservative Anglicans cannot meet at the altar rail with those of us who support gay folk in the Church. This week we are told that there are bishops who cannot join in communion with other TEC folk who are meeting with the ABC in hopes of being chosen to be a part of that “upper” tier. So what the ABC may be doing is allowing individual dioceses to sign on to the Anglican Covenant. Churches like Nigeria, Uganda and Kenya refused to attend Lambeth because the American and Canadian bishops were attending. They have already chosen to walk apart. And yet the ABC chooses to court those who would incite disunion. It is clear that the ABC wants to punish TEC without doing that overtly.
The breaking point may be the Anglican Covenant. The Anglican Covenant in its various manifestations has been met on this side of the pond with such derision that I doubt if TEC could ever be a part of it. It does not take into consideration our polity or our lay-led Church. So we may find ourselves sent to the “second tier.”

Each time I think of a second tier I begin to smile. I am a lover of opera and classical music and love going to concerts. The “second tier” in my mind is the best seat in the house. You can see better, hear better, and you don’t have to dress up.

We can only be ‘second tier’ if we allow others to place us there. But we may be able to see better, hear better and we may not have to dress up to meet at the altar rail.

What the ABC is not paying attention to is the loss of his own church and the split that is happening there. And this ABC will not be here long. He will retire; he will not always direct the Anglican Communion. Meanwhile the Church will continue to emerge all over the world. It will emerge without discrimination for gays; it will emerge without pompous hierarchical trimmings. It will emerge less judgmental, ready to spread the love of God and ready to meet Christ at the altar rail. A two-tier communion will be just a figment of some Hogwartian imagination

The Beginning of Healing?

While reading Susan Russell’s blog I came across a letter from her bishop, +Jon Bruno. Following on a report on the applicants for Suffragan Bishop which includes gay folks, he goes on to say:





“We have a plan for the future, and it includes working toward re-incorporating into our Diocese the four congregations whose members voted five years ago to break away from our Church. When the new bishops suffragan are on board, we will invite them into the leadership of deciding where we go in the future in this process.

No matter what, we are always open to reconciliation. I've been contacted by several of the clergy who left the Diocese who've asked to be reinstated. I am evaluating with my fellow bishops and leadership of this Diocese how we can be of service in providing reconciliation.”

Comment: What a marvelous statement! In the midst of all the pain and agony of the past six years there has been some way that those congregations have found a way to again be a part of the greater church.

I have no idea what kinds of conversations that have gone on in those congregations or what has gone on in the diocesan offices, but something has brought the possibility for healing to the fore. I, for one, will be praying for a way to be found for those parishes to return to the Diocese of Los Angeles.



Now the real hope for healing is for the Archbishop of Canterbury to understand the real meaning of Anglican via media. His two tier concept of Anglican Communion is absurd at best. It takes a willingness to hold both sides in tension and with respect. It is clear that the ABC has reverted to the “cootie” test for lgbt clergy and bishops. Good Lord deliver us…

I have been reading Phyllis Tickle’s The Great Emergence, a tour de force on the signs of change in the world and the Church. It is a fascinati look at the events over the past 500 years. I am especially drawn by her evaluation of the events that happened at the beginning era she calls the Great Reformation because I have been experiencing my own Reformation over the past two years as I pastor a small Lutheran congregation.

There is a temptation to think that the Church is a bulwark of stability. As a student of history, I know that it isn’t. There has never been a time when the Church has not been about change. I believe that is the message of Christ. But there are times when the Church moves or changes more rapidly than others and I do believe that we are in the midst of one such era now.

As I was becoming more involved in the Roman Catholic Church in my twenties, the Church was just responding to the edicts of Vatican II. Vatican II called religious orders and scholars to return to their roots, to look for direction in the past. I know that my order was returning to look at the writings of our foundress and the reasons that some of the customary had developed. The past was more accessible by the mid 20th century. History had become a science in the 19th century and people studied it as they did biology.

Angela Merici, a 16th century illiterate woman formed a group of women to help the young women of her day to combat the wanton culture of Brescia, Italy. She formed not an Order of nuns; she developed a companionship of women. Many of the convents of her era had become hiding places for women who did not fit in to the society. Religious orders had become repositories for the disabled, the disoriented and the unlovely. Angela formed a group that would not be cloistered but who would be available to the young women that were often being forced into prostitution or similar lives. Because the convents had become unable to be about the mission that women of faith needed, Angela created something out of the ordinary. The Angelines or the Company of St. Ursula did not fit into the nice “churchly patterns” and were not initially under the authority of the Church. Gradually it came under the umbrella of the papacy and finally about 70 years later, the Company was enclosed by communal agreement and became one of the major Orders of women religious in the Church. Angela told her followers “to change when change is needed.” It allowed the Order to make the necessary changes that allowed them to meet the needs of their times. And it is through those words, that I am seeing both the Episcopalians (TEC) and the Lutherans (ELCA) as they have opened doors to LGBT folk this summer. They have gone out of the ordinary to make something right.

The passage of TEC’s statement that moratorium on the election of partnered bishops is over and the direction to the liturgical gurus to plan something for same-sex relationship and the ELCA’s passing of a whole new image of human sexuality have been statements that the Church is changing when there is need. Will it cost these churches? Of course! Both denominations will lose members who cannot change, who cannot see that not only are they embracing new theologies, but that they are in a new era. TEC may be regarded as second-class citizens in world-wide Anglicanism. But it has stood for something other than the colonial expression of England in the world. The ELCA are taking their place with the Church of Sweden and others who have already made this step.

Church can so easily become an addiction for many. Church, more than the other institutions in life, often moves or changes slowly. So slow that some are often led to believe that it does not change. There are theologies of God that says God is immutable and unchanging, too. Some want things not to change because there is a false sense of security built-in if things do not change. Addiction to certainty is a fatal disease for the Church.

It is interesting that returning to our roots is what allows the Church to be creative. And it is the cleaning off the accretions of 500 years of reformation allows a renewal that may take the Church out of way that Anglicanism or Lutheranism has been traditionally described.

When I was working in a Spanish-speaking church, it was difficult to figure out what was uniquely Anglican about the Episcopal Church. Now that I am working in a Lutheran setting, I find it difficult to say what is uniquely Lutheran about our faith. Yes, there are ways of doing things that mirror our cultural ties, but there is nothing that is uniquely Lutheran or Episcopalian about the love of Jesus. So perhaps what we will see in the next generations is less centrality in the voice of Luther and less flaunting of the ways of Canterbury and more discussion on who Christ is.

Movin' On Up

Psalm 133
Behold, how good and how pleasant [it is] for brethren to dwell together in unity!
[It is] like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, [even] Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments;
As the dew of Hermon, [and as the dew] that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the LORD commanded the blessing, [even] life for evermore.

From +Gene Robinson's Blog

And move forward we did!
It was an inspiring day in the House of Bishops -- not just because of the final vote to move beyond B033 from the last Convention (declaring an unofficial moratorium on the election and consecration of bishops who happen to be gay and partnered), but because of the gentle, honest and faithful debate that preceded that vote.

As those of you reading this blog know, I've not had a good feeling about my colleagues in the House of Bishops lately. And while this vote has not entirely eased all my concerns, it was a moment (okay, three hours!) when my beloved colleagues rose to speak from their hearts and from their faith about the matters before us. Some of my brothers and sisters spoke and voted in ways that will get them in trouble with many they pastor. Courage comes in many forms, and yesterday, many who had voted FOR the moratorium listened both to the House of Deputies and, I believe, the Holy Spirit, opening their hearts to where God might be moving in the world and in the Church. No doubt, they will pay a price for opening their hearts, much as gay and lesbian people in this Church have paid a price for their exclusion. I applaud them for their courage and will stand with them in the consequences of their vote.

This is the Church I've been telling my gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender brothers and sisters to come to, or to come back to. This is the Church that sees the face of Christ in the poor, the despised, the neglected and the marginalized. This is not the "gay Church," but the Church who values those who are gay, women, people of color, those differently abled, as well as the white, male and middle class. It is a Church for ALL of God's children -- all sinners redeemed by a loving God who gave God's self for ALL on the cross. This is a day to rejoice for the Church -- no, let me be more specific, this is a day to rejoice in The Episcopal Church, which once again has stood for the full inclusion of all.

Another difficult and moving experience for me yesterday: One of my brother bishops confronted me about something I had written here on this blog, reminding me that my words weren't just going to the people of my diocese (for whom my blog is primarily written), but to the many people who come to read my reflections. He disagreed with my perceptions of the House of Bishops (even though they were written as MY perceptions), feeling that they fueled the often-heard perception that there was a divide between the Houses of Deputies and Bishops. He felt -- and I seriously listened to and contemplated -- that I had exhibited the kind of arrogance that I had accused my brother bishops of. I have and will continue to contemplate that, searching my soul for the kind of sin I accuse others of. (Jesus had something to say about the mote in someone ELSE'S eye!) But the point I want to make in relating this personal interaction is that he SAID it. What a gift it is when people speak the truth in love to you. There was no question in my mind that he spoke those words in love -- and that is what makes the Church, and yes, the House of Bishops, a holy place. We're all doing the best we can, and being human, we don't always have the full perspective we'd like. And when we err, fellow Christians correct one another in love. As long as THAT commitment persists, we will be all right. No, we will be better than all right. We will be the community of the faithful God would have us be.

Yesterday was exhausting. At the close of the debate, instead of feeling overjoyed at the two-to-one margin of the vote, I felt strangely quiet, pensive and sober. Votes like this (yea or nay?!) always LOOK like there are winners and losers. I wish that weren't so. I was so aware of those who voted no, many of whom are beloved friends, some from my very close group of bishops in my "class" (elected also in 2003), and how they must feel. They will have experienced the Church, which they love every bit as much as I, moving away from what they perceive to be God's will and the course of action to preserve the Anglican Communion. I, on the other hand, found it hard not to take their votes, and their speeches prior to the vote, personally. It sounded as if they were denying my own humanity, and that of my brothers and sisters who have consistently found ourselves on the fringes of the Church. I know they didn't mean it that way, or think that, but still it is hard to sit and listen to such arguments. But that is what this is all about -- speaking the truth as best we can discern it, for the good of God and God's Church.

So, for me, while I find profound joy in the vote for inclusion, I also continue to feel quiet and humble in the face of it, knowing the distress it also causes in other faithful people, in the Episcopal Church and in the Anglican Communion, who are my brothers and sisters in Christ. Today, we move forward, together. Together -- that's the important thing. As long as we hang in there together, with all our flaws and shortcomings, speaking the truth in love and trusting in God's grace, all will be well. If not today, then tomorrow. Thanks be, not to the House of Deputies nor the House of Bishops, but TO GOD

COMMENT: Most straight folks just don't get it when they talk about LGBT folk as an issue or a problem they don't realize how personal and how exposed we feel. That which should be intimate and internal has had to be exposed for all to see just to find out if we are WORTHY of their consideration. They think it is just a problem to be solved. For us it is the tender parts of our lives--the ones that we love, our families, our parishioners. Thank you, +Gene. I will always be eternally grateful that you would open your life for the rest of us. Now let's get on with being the Church.

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