wyclif

Back in 2003, some of us speculated that the consecration of Gene Robinson might make the secular, anti-Christian left take another look at the Episcopal Church.  This seems to be happening.

Props to Double G.

General Synod sometimes reminds me of a gentlemanly game of cricket. Every speaker in a debate can expect to receive some applause, even from those who disagree with what the speaker has said; if you are bowled out, you lose your amendment, but you will still be applauded as you walk off the pitch. (Rather different from those walks of shame on reality television.) But, beware: as in my imagined old-fashioned game of cricket, the leisurely pace and general good humour of the game do not rule out the use of skilful and forceful tactics.

A typical debate

Let us take this Februarys debate on the Future of Clergy Pensions as an example. The good news for clergy is that the present pension scheme will remain substantially the same as it is now; the bad news is that it is proposed that the annual increase in pensions will no longer follow the annual increase in stipends as in the past, but will instead match increases in the Retail Price Index, and only up to a maximum of 3-5%.

Three amendments were proposed by members: (1) Canon John Ashe proposed an amendment to retain the link between pension and stipend increases; (2) the Bishop of Worcester proposed an amendment to keep the link for all past service; (3) I proposed an amendment for pension increases to match RPI up to 5%. All the amendments were heard and received warm applause, and support from other speakers - the tide seemed to be running in favour of Canon Ashes amendment. Then the big guns were wheeled out by the establishment (you always know that they are worried when this happens).

First, the Chairman of the Archbishops’ Council Finance Division, then the Chairman of Pensions Board, followed by the Archbishop of York warned in solemn tones of the financial Armageddon that would be unleashed on the church if the amendments were passed. The mood of the Synod changed dramatically, and the amendments which had looked like runners earlier in the debate were defeated. The movers of the amendments were congratulated afterwards by the others, even from the platform - we were all such good sports!

General Synod is not always so gentlemanly, and I have witnessed members being shouted at in the corridors for having the temerity to disagree with establishment policy, on the ownership of parsonage houses, for example. I have also witnessed the reception of a few speakers by a stony silence, instead of the customary applause; those few speakers received in silence are usually traditionalists of one kind or another.

Private members’ motions

After two years of Synod meetings which have been intensely stressful because something to do with women bishops has been on every agenda, I was looking forward to a more relaxing Synod this February, now that the women bishops issue has been referred to the legislative drafting group. How wrong I was! Almost the whole of the Wednesday was devoted to two private members’ motions to do with homosexuality.

The Synod’s standing orders allow individual members to put forward motions for consideration; the motions are published and other members sign them if they want to see them debated. Generally no private member’s motion (PMM) will be debated unless it attracts at least a hundred signatures.

Usually the PMM with the most signatures is the one that will be debated at each group of sessions of the Synod.

There is a kind of set format whereby the proposer of the motion is allowed to circulate a briefing paper to the whole Synod, and a synodical board or committee will circulate another ‘official’ briefing paper. When the motion comes to be debated, around one hour is allocated, and an ‘official’ amendment is proposed, often by a bishop or senior figure, which usually renders the original PMM almost unrecognizable, apart from being on the same subject. Supporters of the original motion may try to amend the official amendment to make the motion read more like the original; opponents of the original motion may then try to amend those amendments to make it less like the original. This is a well-established Synod sport!

Two PMMs were floated in February 2006, relating to homosexuality, but approaching it from opposing viewpoints. Both attracted over a hundred signatures, and the powers that be decided it would be only be fair for them both to be debated at the same sessions of Synod (good cricket, again), and on the same day; so we had ‘Lesbian and Gay Christians’ in the morning, and ‘Civil Partnerships’ in the afternoon, separated by some tedious legislative business, lunch and a report on electronic voting. Unusually, the debate on each of these PMMs was allowed to run for over two hours; otherwise they followed the set format for such motions.

Discussing homosexuality

The morning motion, proposed by the Revd Mary Gilbert, was ostensibly about agreeing that homosexual orientation was in itself no bar to a faithful Christian life, welcoming and affirming lesbian and gay Christians, and listening to their experience (as requested by the 1998 Lambeth Conference in its resolution 1.10).

Some of us were concerned that the introductory section of the motion referred to ‘divergent opinions coming from honest and legitimate attempts to read the Scriptures’, whereas the issue is really about what are legitimate readings of the Scriptures in this area. The ‘official’ amendment from the Bishop of Gloucester took the phrase out, together with most of the rest of the motion.

The bishop’s amendment was amended in turn to restore the aspect of listening to the experience of lesbian and gay Christians. The Synod listened sympathetically to the experience of some lesbian and gay Christians in the course of the debate. At an earlier stage, Synod also heard Professor Anthony Thiselton speaking about the consensus of current biblical scholarship, which is overwhelmingly in favour of the traditional reading of Scripture on homosexuality.

My own impression was that the Synod was more open to the experience of lesbian and gay Christians in this debate than it was to the traditional reading of Scripture. The final wording of the motion recognized the Church of England’s commitment to the Lambeth Conference resolutions on human sexuality, which maintain the traditional teaching of the Church and the Bible, while encouraging a process of listening to lesbian and gay Christians.

Civil partnerships

After lunch, and the report on electronic voting, we came to the second PMM, from the Revd Paul Perkin, a conservative evangelical, on ‘Civil Partnerships’. It was a strongly worded motion, stating that civil partnerships ‘would be inconsistent with Christian teaching’, and questioning the House of Bishops’ Pastoral Statement on civil partnerships. The debate was more tense than the morning, and members seemed tired of having much the same subject as the morning debate, with many of the same people speaking.

The ‘official’ amendment, proposed by the Bishop of Liverpool, rendered the original motion unrecognizable. Both sides tried to amend the official amendment, with the bizarre result that they united in not wishing to recognize the Bishops’ Pastoral Statement as a ‘balanced and faithful attempt faithfully to apply the Church’s teaching to civil partnerships’ - this apparent rejection of the Bishops’ Pastoral Statement was the headline in all the national newspapers that reported the debate.

Common Tenure

A major change to Clergy Terms and Conditions of Service was brought before the Synod in the form of draft legislation. Draft legislation is introduced in the Synod under a set procedure, whereby it is first considered for referral to a revision committee. No amendments can be proposed unless or until it reaches the revision committee stage, although concerns can be expressed in the initial debate.

The proposals started as a way of giving security of tenure to priests-in-charge, under pressure from the government; they then became a way of also abolishing the freehold of incumbents and putting all clergy under Common Tenure. However, Common Tenure will not be quite as common as it seems: some appointments would still be short-term or time-limited (a bit like present priests-in-charge), while others would be permanent (a bit like present freehold).

Apart from the issue of whether parsonage houses should be owned by the incumbent in trust, or by the diocesan parsonages board, there was concern expressed about clergy being micro-managed through regulations and a system of annual review. There was also concern about the proposed introduction of a capability procedure, whereby clergy can be removed from office for not fulfilling their duties to minimum acceptable standards, even if they have not committed any disciplinary offence.

The Synod agreed to refer the draft legislation to a revision committee, which means that everyone who has concerns can write in and suggest amendments; the draft legislation will then come back to the Synod, probably in a revised form for further consideration.

Range of issues

The Synod discussed a range of other subjects including Education, Trident and Media Standards. Members of the Catholic Group in General Synod played a part in all the debates, which is as it should be. The Catholic faith is about the whole of life, not just what happens in church; we are certainly not a single-issue group, only concerned about the ordination of women, vital though that issue is.

In a few years’ time, there will be elections to the General Synod, and we will need a good number of candidates to stand for election – perhaps this might include you!

–The Revd Canon Simon Killwick is the new Area Dean of Hulme in the Diocese of Manchester and serves as Chairman of the Catholic Group in General Synod; this article appeared in the April 2007 edition of New Directions, page2 7-8

Several years ago (ok, I was still in college so it was lots and lots of years ago), I was in an automobile accident. I was stopped for a red light, minding my own business, and a car slammed into me from behind. I hadn’t seen it coming so it was a shock when it happened, but my immediate thought was that it had probably dented my bumper pretty badly. At least, that was my thought until I got out of the car and went behind to look. I was driving a Volkswagen bug (as I still do), and what I hoped was a fender-bender turned out to be a major wreck. The engine had been pushed into the back seat, and what was already a small car looked like a concertina. I can still remember being astonished at how much damage was done.

The memory of that accident popped into my mind as I was thinking about my time in the Episcopal Church. It’s been twenty-five years since I left, and at the time it felt as though I had been in an accident. I thought I was pretty happy as an Anglican cleric, driving along and minding my own business until I got slammed from behind by the agenda we’ve seen playing out in the Episcopal Church ever since. At first a lot of us thought it was a minor accident, but it served as a wake-up call that the vehicle we were traveling in wasn’t very safe, and it might be as well to trade it in for something safer and more solid. It wasn’t until we got out that we realized we had been in a major pile-up with a huge number of fatalities.

I’m mystified as to why “Mystical Seeker” hasn’t found an Episcopal church - especially in San Francisco - that fits him/her like a glove. But here’s the sad story of someone looking for a personal Jesus:

Today, I didn’t go to church. I have seen some progressive congregations in the region that interest me, but which are located in suburbs that would require a fair amount of driving to get to. Thus, because of their distance, they, unfortunately, are a bit far away for regular attendance. Still, there is a part of me that wants to at least check some of these churches out at least once, to see if they can provide some hint that perhaps there do actually exist forms of progressive Christianity that I can relate to. This morning, I woke up too late to venture too far afield in time for a 10 AM service, so I did a quick perusal of the web site of the Center for Progressive Christianity, to see what lies in my own city of San Francisco. I’ve looked at their affiliate list for California before, and it hasn’t changed much since the last time I checked it out.

I took another look at a Presbyterian church on that affiliate list. I had looked at the church before and felt that it wasn’t right for me. The problem with the label “progressive” is that it is often a vague concept that means whatever the church in question wants it to mean. Many churches like to think of themselves as “progressive” because they fully support gays and lesbians, as if that were the be-all and end-all of what the concept means; yet many of these same churches preach remarkably orthodox notions in other areas, particularly when it comes to the doctrine of the resurrection. This particular church seems to be one of those. I found a sermon on its web site going back to Easter of 2006, in which the pastor made it clear that she fully believed in the literal truth of the resurrection, and that without it she would “wash her hands” of the Christian faith. It is statements like these that scare me away from churches.

Still, I thought I wanted to go to some church, and it was running too late to find a church that had a 10 AM service, and the Presbyterian church’s service starts at 10:30, so part of me was trying to talk myself into going there despite my gut feeling against it. The web site for the church included the latest newsletter, which contained an article about progressive Christianity that I mostly liked. Maybe I could check the place out after all. The neighborhood where the church is located is not a good one for finding parking, but, amazingly, I found street parking on the same block as the church. If I were superstitious or believed in parking Karma or that God manipulated parking spaces, I could have taken this as a sign that I should go to this church. But I didn’t. I realized I didn’t really feel like going in to that church after all—which is to say, my gut feeling won out. I got out of my car, walked down a nearby main drag and found a nice neighborhood bookstore that was open on a Sunday morning. I browsed a bit, then went back to my car, and left.
…
The funny thing is, I am not very fond of many aspects of the Danish Lutheran Church’s official theology, and yet I was able to find value in its non-conventional Night Church services a few weeks ago. In the case of the candlelit service I attended in Copenhagen, I was able to allow the language barrier to permit me to break through my theological objections and experience worship as a contemplative experience. Non-conventional worship often works well for me, especially if it offers something contemplative. That is why I am drawn to such things as Taize at an Episcopal church while Sunday morning services at that same church hold no appeal for me whatsoever. The Presbyterian church I didn’t go to today has a once-a-month Jazz Vesper Service that I have not visited, and that may or may not be something that I would like. Many Episcopal churches offer innovative Sunday evening services that I have considered investigating.
…
I am waiting for this whole Easter season to end, so that Christian churches can put their mythologies away for another year. I seemed to like it better last summer when “the Risen Christ” wasn’t the topic of the sermons.

I haven’t enthused about Pippa in a day or two, so it’s about time for me to display more reasons for admiring my daughter. So, for instance, the other day she was plotting my lexical demise over the Scrabble board — this is what I’m up against.

Frequent readers know her to have a rich imagination for design; yesterday she went to a party for an employee of Target department stores, for which she modified a hand-me-down dress (and her socks) with the Target emblem. I gather that she was a hit.

What readers may not have noticed that she frequently cooks dinner for us; not content simply to defrost some Boca burgers (which would be plenty good for me), she pores over cookbooks to find practical, inexpensive, appealing entrees. The other day I had a late-afternoon meeting when she would have an early choir rehearsal, so she cooked dinner while I was conferring with colleagues. I came home to see the note below:

(“Cool kids” alludes to a running joke between us. If one forgets to turn off the oven or a stoivetop burner, the other will say, “Cool kids turn off the front burner.”)

Reluctance to discipline non-conforming clergy and parishes has been a mark of the Episcopal Church’s handling of controversy. As the focus of debate shifted to gender issues and the ordination of non-celibate gay and lesbian ordinands, a resort to disciplinary procedure preoccupied the church as a presentment was made in 1996 by Bishop James Stanton of Dallas on behalf of a group of his colleagues against the Rt. Rev. Walter C. Righter, former Bishop of Iowa and an Assistant Bishop of Newark. Righter, who had ordained to the priesthood a non-celibate gay man in a public relationship with a partner, was charged with “the offense of holding and teaching…a doctrine contrary to that held by this Church.”. The Theological Court for the Trial of a Bishop, on which I served as one of its nine members, ruled that although the matter at hand was doctrinal in nature, it was not part of the core doctrine of the church, of creedal or kerygmatic teaching. On the strength of this conclusion, the Court declined to bring Righter to trial and the matter became moot. Although our decision bears on the question of same-sex blessing which must be answered in the vote at your June General Synod, you clearly have had opportunity for deeper reflection on the subject that was available to us in 1996, and I am grateful for the opportunity to see the various papers which have been drafted over what you are asked to conclude, what constitutes doctrine?.

Which brings us to the recent past, the election of Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire, his confirmation and consecration, and the recent turmoil. Resistance to his confirmation at the 2003 Convention brought about a greater coalescence of disgruntled individuals and groups than we had previously seen, though the numbers in no way represent the level of opposition claimed in the media. In some respects I think we confront what may be described as a convergence of the unhappy, some who still cling to theological and liturgical issues raised by the new Prayer Book, some opposed to the ordination of women, some genuinely committed to alternative ways of reading scripture, as well as those opposed to ordination of gays and the blessing of gay unions. A new element in the equation is the linkage to overseas provinces and therefore to Anglican identity, mostly but not exclusively from Africa, and the open and distinctly un-traditional crossing of provincial boundaries to intervene in the life of the Episcopal Church. A piece of this jigsaw puzzle is the active lobbying by such groups as the Institute of Religion and Democracy, a frankly-political body linked to the Christian Right, and the considerable financial support for its outright effort to discredit the leadership of mainstream Christian bodies in the US, and to foment schism within them.

Let me bring my discussion a close. In visiting the history of the Communion since World War II, I earlier stressed the creation of an Anglican executive office after 1958, the two Anglican Congresses of 1954 and 1963, and the creation of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1968. First meeting in 1971, the Council represents be the only one of the four instruments of unity made up of all orders in the church, laity and clergy as well as bishops. It has without much fanfare plied its responsibilities of supplying a continuity of consultation and guidance on policy and program which the Communion previously lacked., and in its 1984 report gave us the graceful phrase “bonds of affection” to describe the nature of Anglican relations, “which were simply that, bonds of affection, not legally binding, legally enforceable parameters of thought and conduct,” as one US bishop recently commented..

Lambeth 1998 called for an Anglican Gathering, something resembling the earlier Anglican Congresses, to be held in South Africa in 2008, and the US General Convention in 2003 gave it enthusiastic support and requested that financial provision for it be included in the next triennial meeting. Plans for the Gathering and for holding the next Lambeth outside England did not materialize, as the committee charged with the planning began work too late to make the necessary hotel and other arrangements. This represents a great loss. The recent TEAM conference in South Africa (Towards Effective Anglican Mission) was convened in place of the hoped-for comprehensive Anglican Gathering. It nevertheless provided a significant occasion for Anglicans to come together around service to the Millennium Development Goals, bridging the divisions which marked the Primates meeting in Dar es Salaam .

The question before the Communion is Which vision and implementing structures of Anglican community will prevail?. Will they be based on the work of an Anglican Consultative Council with its inclusiveness of all orders with the Church? Will the evident commitment among provinces north and south be to work together on the global realities embodied in response to the Millennium Development Goals or the more limited agenda of human sexuality? Or will the next chapter be limited to initiatives by the other three instruments of unity — the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, and the Primates’ Meeting — all of which consist of bishops alone? And which vision will inform further developments of the Windsor Report and the Covenant process?

Read it all.

Texas Anglican Tat!

The processions and T. A. T. of St. Timothy’s in Fort Worth are so impressive it’s making the Catholicks over at the Shrine of the Holy Whapping jealous. (via “christian-anglican” via wyclif.net in Google Reader)

Ok, just to complicate things (because it’s fun to complicate things once in a while), now we can not only obsess over what kind of computer company is better, or best, but which country does the best ads about which computer is better, or best. Like to make it really complicated, you might like PC’s better than Macs, but you might like the Mac ads from the UK that make fun of PC’s better than the Mac ads from the US that make fun of PC’s. Or you might like the US Mac ads that Make fun of the PC, but use Lenux. Anyway, both computers that are made fun of, and not made fun of, can do pie charts and can be used on vacations and stuff. So have fun. Today. With your movies and pie charts and other things that you like to do on your computer.



(via “christian-anglican” via wyclif.net in Google Reader)

A Book on Hillary to Watch

Carl Bernstein of Watergate fame is a few weeks away from a releasing a book that exposes Hillary Clinton as, well, a fibber.

Now I coulda told ya the Clintons are congenital liars. But it’s interesting that at least a few prominent liberals seem to be waking up to that fact. For example, former Clinton donor David Geffen has stated, “The Clintons lie with such ease, it’s troubling.”

Troubling indeed. During the Dark Days of 1992-2000, I would almost automatically turn the sound off when Bill Clinton spoke because I could not endure his constantly lying with such a sincere front. He reminded me of the smartass kid who could tell the most brazen lies with such a straight face, it almost made you want to believe him.

Now I could get snarky that a few liberals are waking up to this endearing Clinton trait. But I’ll just say it’s interesting … and that the fall out from Bernstein’s book A Woman in Charge: The Life of Hillary Rodham Clinton will be interesting to watch. Hillary is already losing support to Obama. This book can’t help.


Hat tip to titusonenine. (via “christian-anglican” via wyclif.net in Google Reader)

Ladies and gentlemen, your Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America:

We hear that former New Jersey gov Jim McGreevey has a new career planned—and that he’ll enter the General Theological Seminary in Manhattan next year. (We know—this is the second-craziest rumor we’ve heard this week! Please tell us we’re wrong?) A religious-type person says that the Episcopal Diocese of Newark will sponsor his training for the priesthood. McGreevey, a former altar boy and a graduate of the Catholic University of America, broke with the Catholic church circa 2005; his daughter is being raised a Catholic. What all this means for his very nice boyfriend, or for his Jewish-institution-funding pal Charles Kushner (sponsor of Golan Cipel’s work visa!), we’re just not sure.

The New Yorker was once famous for the ferocity of its fact-checking and editing. No more. Any magazine whose editors give a pass to falsehoods (e.g., Catholics believe that “heaven, and possibly earth, belongs exclusively to them”), grossly tendentious mis-readings of documents (e.g., Vatican II’s Nostra Aetate taught “the dim possibility of Jewish salvation”), and factual errors (e.g., Karol Wojtyla was “one of the young theological advisers at Vatican II”) is a magazine that is not seriously edited.

Jane Kramer’s lengthy tantrum in the New Yorker’s April 2 issue, “The Pope and Islam,” is really several articles in one. It’s a wailing wall for left-leaning Vaticanisti, disgruntled Curial bureaucrats, and Italian Catholic activists unhappy with Benedict XVI’s challenge to Islam. It’s an effort — rather unsuccessful, I fear — to come to grips with the substance of the Pope’s Regensburg Lecture in September 2006. It’s yet another attempt to drive a wedge between Benedict XVI and John Paul II, along the hoary “nice Wojtyla/nasty Ratzinger” axis of pseudo-analysis. And it’s a brusque dismissal, without serious examination, of Benedict XVI’s suggestion that the first inculturation of Christianity in the world of classical rationality was providential, because it gave early Christians the intellectual tools to turn their evangelical confession of faith (“Jesus is Lord”) into doctrine and creeds, such as the Nicene Creed universally prayed by the Church.

The Wojtyla-vs.-Ratzinger business is easily rebutted. In Crossing the Threshold of Hope, John Paul II stated flatly that “not only the theology but also the anthropology of Islam is very distant from Christianity.” That’s a far more dramatic statement of the gap between Christianity and Islam than anything Benedict XVI said at Regensburg. The “nice Wojtyla/nasty Ratzinger” trope is a cartoon, period. Anyone who hasn’t come to grips with what John Paul II wrote about Islam isn’t in a position to comment seriously on the differences in approach — which certainly exist — between the two popes.

A similar lack of research, or so one assumes, distorts Ms. Kramer’s reading of Benedict’s approach to Islam.

Read it all.

Whenever Antonio Moreno wanted to see his girlfriend, police say, he’d jump in a car and drive right over. But there was a problem. The 26 cars Moreno jumped into all belonged to someone else, according to authorities who arrested the 31-year-old near his Inglewood home on Wednesday. They said he was behind the wheel of a 1987 Toyota Camry when they found him.

Since January, police said, Moreno had been stealing Toyota Camrys and Nissan Sentras by using a simple device that starts Japanese cars of a certain age. Acting on a tip, members of a regional auto-theft task force took him into custody….

His girlfriend, who was not arrested, told authorities she had been trying to dump him.

Read it all.

In the 1970’s, Kids in the ghetto wanted to be rich. They saw rich people who could afford to play tennis wearing Fila and started buying Fila tennis shoes and clothing. As soon as the rich people found out, they stopped wearing Fila. We are all looking for an inner circle. The problem- one minute your in and the next minute, your out.
In college, a few of us wore Dr. Martens to identify with the working class and to differentiate ourselves from “everyone else” (it was the late 80’s). We created inner circles by changing shoes. Many followed. Sometimes you can create an inner circle by drawing your own.
When I worked with the disabled and retarded, we would go through phases, calling folks who were retarded, clients, participants, members. The hope was to try to erase prejudice and stereotypes by changing the use of words. The disabled where scorned, looked down upon and kept from the inner cricle of life. We thought changing vocabulary could fix things. Sometimes your out of the circle, no matter what you say.
Funny how we are always moving into and out of accepted circles. PC or Mac? Which cricle is cooler
Check out the videos below. They are funny, satirical, and make a point about the emerging churches growing distain for the Christian ghetto and the two circles presently known as Christian and Christ follower. What do you think?
I’m a Christ Follower (Part 1)


I’m a Christ Follower (Part 2)


I’m a Christ Follower (Part 3)


I’m a Christ Follower (Part 4)
(via “christian-anglican” via wyclif.net in Google Reader)

In a lavish ceremony intertwining centuries-old rituals with contemporary messages, a man who pledged compassion to all became Ohio’s newest leader in the Episcopal faith yesterday.

The Rev. Thomas E. Breidenthal was consecrated as the ninth bishop for the Episcopal Diocese of Southern Ohio at the Ohio State University campus.

About 2,000 people from throughout the state welcomed their new bishop at Mershon Auditorium. The diocese includes 25,000 members in 40 counties of central and southern Ohio.

“It’s something that just pulls the whole diocese together,” said Molly Bailey, who traveled from Cincinnati for the consecration. “It’s not like this happens on a regular basis.”

Breidenthal succeeds Bishop Herbert Thompson Jr., who retired in December 2005 after reaching the mandatory retirement age of 72. He died in August.

Read it all.

I highly commend this Colloquium on the future of Anglican Catholicism, which will be hosted by St. Vincent’s during the first weekend in June. Dr Peter Kreeft of Boston College, the noted Catholic apologist, will be the keynote speaker. And a “Who’s Who” of Anglo-Catholic luminaries will be attending and speaking, including Bishops Urwin, Wantland, Parsons, Iker, and Ackerman and the Rev. Dr. Geoffrey Kirk. There will be a Solemn High Mass and two Solemn Evensongs with Benediction, with preachers on each occasion. This is surely a fine investment of $50, which includes your meals. Sign up today! (via “christian-anglican” via wyclif.net in Google Reader)