23 January 2009

Title IV from the Blue Book 2009

In a previous post, I urged you to download a copy of the Canons and Constitution of The Episcopal Church. I felt that this would be beneficial as we move toward General Convention this summer.

The blue book has been released - at least that portion that deals with Title IV. Of note to me is Canon 16 - Of Abandonment of The Episcopal Church. The proposed section regarding bishops states:
(A) By a Bishop

Sec. 1 If a Bishop abandons the Episcopal Church (i) by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of the Church, or (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, or (iii) by exercising Episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than the Church or another church in communion with the Church, so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as the Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in the Church, it shall be the duty of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, by a majority vote of all of its members, to certify the fact to the Presiding Bishop and with the certificate to send a statement of the acts or declarations which show such abandonment, which certificate and statement shall be recorded by the Presiding Bishop. The Presiding Bishop shall then place a restriction on the exercise of ministry of said Bishop until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act thereon. During the period of such restriction, the Bishop shall not perform any Episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts.

(A) By a Bishop Sec. 1 If a Bishop abandons the Episcopal Church (i) by an open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline or Worship of the Church, or (ii) by formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the same, or (iii) by exercising Episcopal acts in and for a religious body other than the Church or another church in communion with the Church, so as to extend to such body Holy Orders as the Church holds them, or to administer on behalf of such religious body Confirmation without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in the Church, it shall be the duty of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, by a majority vote of all of its members, to certify the fact to the Presiding Bishop and with the certificate to send a statement of the acts or declarations which show such abandonment, which certificate and statement shall be recorded by the Presiding Bishop. The Presiding Bishop shall then place a restriction on the exercise of ministry of said Bishop until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act thereon. During the period of such restriction, the Bishop shall not perform any Episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts.
I am not an expert in canon law, and to be honest, I barely have a working knowledge of canon law. But to me it would seem that the word discipline is the key factor in dealing with the schismatic bishops.

Title I Canon II specifies the role of the Presiding Bishop.
Sec. 4 (a) The Presiding Bishop shall be the Chief Pastor and Primate of the Church, and shall:

(1) Be charged with responsibility for leadership in initiating and developing the policy and strategy in the Church and speaking for the Church as to the policies, strategies and programs authorized by the General Convention;

(2) Speak God's words to the Church and to the world, as the representative of this Church.
As I understand this Canon, the Presiding Bishop is the senior pastor of this church. As such, all bishops are subject to the authority of the Presiding Bishop.

If any bishop states that s/he is not answerable to the Presiding Bishop, or that the Presiding Bishop has no authority over said bishop, I cannot see that as anything except abandonment of the discipline of The Episcopal Church. It would be a repudiation the above canon.

I believe my opinion is confirmed by the following sections:
Sec.2 The Presiding Bishop, or the presiding officer, shall forthwith give notice to the Bishop of the certification and restriction on ministry. Unless the restricted Bishop, within sixty days, makes declaration by a verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop, that the facts alleged in the certificate are false or utilizes the provisions of Canon III.12.7, the Bishop will be liable to Deposition. If the Presiding Bishop is reasonably satisfied that the statement constitutes (i) a good faith retraction of the declarations or acts relied upon in the certification to the Presiding Bishop or (ii) a good faith denial that the Bishop made the declarations or committed the acts relied upon in the certificate, the Presiding Bishop, with the advice and consent of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, shall terminate the restriction. Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.

Sec.2 The Presiding Bishop, or the presiding officer, shall forthwith give notice to the Bishop of the certification and restriction on ministry. Unless the restricted Bishop, within sixty days, makes declaration by a verified written statement to the Presiding Bishop, that the facts alleged in the certificate are false or utilizes the provisions of Canon III.12.7, the Bishop will be liable to Deposition. If the Presiding Bishop is reasonably satisfied that the statement constitutes (i) a good faith retraction of the declarations or acts relied upon in the certification to the Presiding Bishop or (ii) a good faith denial that the Bishop made the declarations or committed the acts relied upon in the certificate, the Presiding Bishop, with the advice and consent of the Disciplinary Board for Bishops, shall terminate the restriction. Otherwise, it shall be the duty of the Presiding Bishop to present the matter to the House of Bishops at the next regular or special meeting of the House. If the House, by a majority of the whole number of Bishops entitled to vote, shall give its consent, the Presiding Bishop shall depose the Bishop from the ministry, and pronounce and record in the presence of two or more Bishops that the Bishop has been so deposed.
If the Presiding Bishop is not the canonical authority over all members of the House of Bishops, why then, is the Presiding Bishop charged with implementing the above actions? If the disciplinary action comes from the Presiding Bishop, then the Presiding Bishop is, in effect, the "boss of the bishops."

Is there a reader who is more expert on Canon Law who can show my how my reasoning is incorrect? That's not "fighting words," but a genuine request to show my how I misunderstand the canons. I welcome new and correct understanding.

I believe that General Convention should be much more explicit concerning the role of the Presiding Bishop. And, I go so far as to state that the authority of the Primate should be expanded slightly to allow the Presiding Bishop to deal with renegade bishops of any flavour. Not exactly "archbishop power," but certainly some teeth to go with the charge of office.

My next post will deal with the the section of IV which deals with errant priests and deacons as stated in the blue book recommendations.


22 January 2009

Duncan group's access to funds frozen

According to an article in The Post-Gazette, all funds of the Diocese of Pittsburgh have been frozen to keep Duncan from accessing them. At stake is more than $20 million dollars (not including real estate).

Financial services firm Morgan Stanley has frozen the accounts of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh because it is unsure who should be allowed to access them.

In a letter Jan. 13, the firm's legal and compliance division said the company would not allow any further distributions until it received a court order listing those authorized to use the accounts.

The dispute stems from a split in the church. In October, a group that represents about 60 percent of the local parishes voted to join the more theologically conservative Anglican Province of the Southern Cone.

That group calls itself the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh (Anglican). About 40 percent of the original diocese that remains identifies itself as the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States.

On Nov. 20, the group that voted against leaving the diocese wrote to Morgan Stanley about the assets. Its leaders claim they have not been able to use any of the $20 million in diocesan assets or personnel files since the split. Earlier this month, the group asked the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas to allow it to have access to the funds, citing an October 2005 stipulation. That paperwork said that if the Anglican group were to leave the church, all property held by the "Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh of the Episcopal Church of the United States of America," would continue to be held.

But the Anglican diocese, which has the majority of the parishes, argues that that's not what its group intended.

In a court filing on Tuesday, the Anglican diocese asked the judge to restore its access to the funds.

The whole document filed with the court may be read in PDF format here. For convenience, here it is:
Information on Court Filings by Southern Cone Group

On January 20, 2009, the attorneys for former Bishop Duncan and other former leaders of the Diocese who now regard themselves to be affiliated with the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone filed three motions with the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County seeking to oppose the “Request to Special Master” that had been filed jointly by the Diocese and Calvary Episcopal Church on January 8, 2009. A copy of the news release describing the Diocesan filing of January 8 can be found at

http://www.episcopalpgh.org/access-to-funds/

This posting will briefly explain these motions by the attorneys for the Southern Cone group.

The first motion filed by the Southern Cone attorneys is a “Motion to Strike Praecipe for Entry of Appearance.” This motion contends that the Diocese is a “newlycreated diocese” that was formed by the Special Convention held on December 13, 2008, and that the Diocese must file a motion with the Court to intervene in the pending litigation before our attorney can enter an appearance or file papers with the Court in the case. Our Diocese, however, is not a “newly-created” Diocese. Both the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council of the Episcopal Church have determined that our Diocese is the rightful continuation of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. While the Southern Cone group disputes that point, the Court (Judge Joseph James) was well aware of that dispute when he requested, in open court on October 23, 2008, that our Chancellor enter his appearance in the litigation on behalf of the Diocese.

The second motion filed by the Southern Cone attorneys is a “Motion to Restore and Preserve Status Quo and Preclude Interference with Diocesan Property.” This motion was evidently prompted by the decision of Morgan Stanley, the investment manager of the Diocesan endowment funds, to refrain from permitting any further distributions from the Diocesan accounts until the Court decides who is entitled to ownership and control of the accounts. This decision by Morgan Stanley, which was apparently communicated to the Southern Cone group on January 13, 2009, and which our Diocesan leaders were not aware of until the Southern Cone motions were served on January 20, 2009, is a common response of a third party asset manager when there is a bona fide dispute as to ownership and control of the assets under their management. The Southern Cone group is not alleging financial hardship due to this decision by Morgan Stanley, only that this interferes with their ability to run their “diocese” as they have in the past. This motion wrongly alleges that Morgan Stanley’s decision to freeze the accounts was the result of our “Request to Special Master,” but that is not the case to our knowledge. Our Chancellor had written a letter to Morgan Stanley on November 20, 2008, to make sure they were aware of the dispute involving the Diocesan funds under their management, to request information regarding the accounts, and to request that they not make any distributions to anyone claiming to be the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh without first informing us. This letter did not ask that the funds be frozen, but it did point out the need for safeguards to ensure that all Diocesan assets are preserved and protected to the greatest extent possible until the disputes among the parties are resolved. Morgan Stanley’s decision to freeze these accounts, of course, provides such a safeguard.

This second Southern Cone motion also alleges that Morgan Stanley’s freezing of the accounts has affected the assessments of parishes that have chosen to be part of the Southern Cone group. While we do not agree that parishes can leave the Diocese or The Episcopal Church, we do recognize and respect the rights of individuals to do so, and to provide ongoing financial support for the churches of their choice. We do not claim ownership of those post-separation contributions to the Southern Cone group, and believe that issue can be resolved by discussions between the attorneys.

The third Southern Cone motion is a “Motion to Strike Request to Special Master and Notice to Plead.” Rather than answering the Diocese's court filing paragraph by paragraph, the Southern Cone group is asking the Court to strike it as improper. This filing repeats their argument that we are a “New Diocese” and that they are the continuation of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh. They make no attempt to explain how that can be the case when they disclaim any further affiliation with The Episcopal Church, and when the Presiding Bishop and the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church have both determined that we, and not they, are the continuation of the Diocese. This filing also argues that any rulings on our “Request to Special Master” must be decided by the Court, and not by the Special Master. We believe our request was properly addressed to the Special Master, but ultimately the Court will determine the role of the Special Master.

A due date has not yet been set for the Diocese's formal responses to these motions.
If you read this far, I'll explain the title to this post. Those who remained in TEC were not allowed access to any diocesan funds by Duncan's group. The freezing of accounts only applies to those who had access to the funds. Therefore, it applies only to Duncan's group until the courts rule.

21 January 2009

Bishop Robinson's Inaugural Day reflecctions

You must go read the reflection by The Right Rev'd V. Gene Robinson, Bishop of New Hampshire It's really amazing. His blog is here.

[My apologizes to New Hampshire for having listed +Robinson as bishop of Massachusetts. I was listening to a report about Senator Kennedy as I typed the post.]

Here is a snippet about the St. John's service before the inauguration.
Dr. T. D. Jakes gave a magnificent sermon, based on the story of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, being thrown into the fiery furnace.

Some of his points, on which he elaborated brilliantly:

"there is no light without heat"; the three Hebrew boys were saved because they stood up! it's time we ALL stood up for what is right and good;

King Nebuchadnezzar turns the furnace up to seven times its normal heat, more than the furnace or its contents can bear -- pointing out the ways in which the economy, war, health care, etc. have deteriorated beyond what we can bear; and finally, when the King looks into the furnace to see the boys' destruction, instead, they are intact, and there is a FOURTH figure -- the Spirit of God which has seen them through and preserved them. You can imagine the rest. It was SO powerful.

If you missed this morning's Inaugural Prayer Service from the National Cathedral, it is archived here. You really need to watch it.

General Synod and the Covenant

The schedule for the upcoming General Synod has been released with all the necessary documents. Of note is the reply to the proposed Anglican Covenant. It's worth a read, folks. The document is found here.

Of particular interest to me is the section that deals with the Thirty Nine Articles, tradition, and reason.
IV: Section One: Our Inheritance of Faith

The Church of England would have no difficulty agreeing to the affirmations of this opening section of the draft, which are consistent with Church of England teachings and largely based on the Declaration of Assent in Canon C.15. However, we suggest that this section needs to recognise the different ways in which the Thirty Nine Articles the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal have shaped and continue to shape the lives of the different Provinces.

In section 1.2 where the text briefly touches on how the Anglican inheritance of faith is worked out in various cultural contexts the material would be strengthened by a discussion of what is meant by the terms ‘tradition’ and ‘reason’ and how they relate to the normative authority of Scripture for Christian faith and life as expressed in the historic formularies. In this connection reference could usefully be made to the material on this subject in the reports of the successive Lambeth Conferences (for example 1948 and 1988), in the Virginia Report of the Inter-Anglican Theological and Doctrinal Commission
Go give it a read and tell me what you think.

20 January 2009

White House web page and Gay rights

Following on the heals of my post reflecting on what today means to me, I need to draw your attention to something else that is remarkable about our new President.

I was on the White House Web page this morning and I clicked from the main page to read something interesting. About ten seconds later, I clicked on the "home" page and the Junior's site was gone and Mr. Obama's site was up and running. Isn't technology wonderful.

One of the interesting this is what is contained on the new site. There, in print, the President of The United States of America commits himself to Gay rights. It's all here. Go read it for yourself.
"While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It's about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect."-- Barack Obama, June 1, 2007

Expand Hate Crimes Statutes:
In 2004, crimes against LGBT Americans constituted the third-highest category of hate crime reported and made up more than 15 percent of such crimes. President Obama cosponsored legislation that would expand federal jurisdiction to include violent hate crimes perpetrated because of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or physical disability. As a state senator, President Obama passed tough legislation that made hate crimes and conspiracy to commit them against the law.

Fight Workplace Discrimination:
President Obama supports the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. While an increasing number of employers have extended benefits to their employees' domestic partners, discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace occurs with no federal legal remedy. The President also sponsored legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would ban employment discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples:
President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.

Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage:
President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.

Repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell:
President Obama agrees with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff John Shalikashvili and other military experts that we need to repeal the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The key test for military service should be patriotism, a sense of duty, and a willingness to serve. Discrimination should be prohibited. The U.S. government has spent millions of dollars replacing troops kicked out of the military because of their sexual orientation. Additionally, more than 300 language experts have been fired under this policy, including more than 50 who are fluent in Arabic. The President will work with military leaders to repeal the current policy and ensure it helps accomplish our national defense goals.

Expand Adoption Rights:
President Obama believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation. He thinks that a child will benefit from a healthy and loving home, whether the parents are gay or not.

Promote AIDS Prevention:
In the first year of his presidency, President Obama will develop and begin to implement a comprehensive national HIV/AIDS strategy that includes all federal agencies. The strategy will be designed to reduce HIV infections, increase access to care and reduce HIV-related health disparities. The President will support common sense approaches including age-appropriate sex education that includes information about contraception, combating infection within our prison population through education and contraception, and distributing contraceptives through our public health system. The President also supports lifting the federal ban on needle exchange, which could dramatically reduce rates of infection among drug users. President Obama has also been willing to confront the stigma -- too often tied to homophobia -- that continues to surround HIV/AIDS.

Empower Women to Prevent HIV/AIDS:
In the United States, the percentage of women diagnosed with AIDS has quadrupled over the last 20 years. Today, women account for more than one quarter of all new HIV/AIDS diagnoses. President Obama introduced the Microbicide Development Act, which will accelerate the development of products that empower women in the battle against AIDS. Microbicides are a class of products currently under development that women apply topically to prevent transmission of HIV and other infections.

Yes, words are cheap. But brothers and sisters, do you realize how significant it is for these words to be written on the official URL of the White House? If you don't, then go find one of those people who were at Stonewall that night so long ago and talk to them. Then you'll understand. The GLBT community has moved from the back of the bus. Yes, it's only to the middle of the bus, at the moment, but it's not the back of he bus. I feel very optimistic tonight.

Proclaim liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof

Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace
according to thy word;
for mine eyes have seen they salvation ...
Today, I understand the words of Simeon more than I have in the past. Like him, I have witnessed something I never, in my wildest imagination, thought I would actually live long enough to see.

When I was a child my two of my parents' best friends were an elderly couple, Clarence and Ellen Daniels. They were as much a part of our daily life as breakfast was and they were like second parents to me. If I disappeared and mom couldn't find me, I'd usually be found at the Daniel's house. That meant I had to wander across the highway to get here. I was about four years old back then.

What is remarkable about all of that is that Clarence and Ellen were black -- no, they were Negros; black was a derogatory term then. When the home they rented became available for purchase, they asked to buy the house but were told that "no uppity [Negros] were going to own property in this town." I didn't understand; I was too young. In fact, I still don't understand it. All I knew was that two people I loved were moving from my daily life. Mom said that I "moaped (?) around for a week."

Ellen tried to explain it to me, but finally, all she could say was "Jimmy, some things are just wrong and that's just the way they are. But maybe when you're all grown up, things will be different."

But the most remarkable part of the story is the legacy they left me -- a gift I cherish. Clarence and Ellen were both the children of slaves.

I was held, hugged and loved by the children of slaves. One person separates me from the horrible reality of slavery. I remember Ellen telling me about the scars around her father's ankles from the iron fetters rubbing the skin off his body. (Clarence had scars on his back from a bull whipping Klan members gave him when he was nine years old because they thought Clarence was getting too "uppity.")

For me, slavery is not a remote event in the history books. The viciousness of hatred is not a remote concept. I have a physical personal, emotional and spiritual connection to that era. Arms that caressed me were caressed by former slaves. I wore the shirt that Ellen's father wore the day the Union Army freed him from slavery.

Like Simeon and Anna, this white boy never thought he would live to see this day. But here I am, and there he is, and there they are! A black president of the United States. An openly gay and partnered bishop praying at an official inauguration event. Young, old, male, female, black, white, yellow, brown, red skinned, gay, straight, bisexual, transgendered Americans standing shoulder to shoulder to witness the dawn of a new day of possibilities.

I'm not so arrogant to think I truly understand what today means to Americans of colour or what it means to those who lived though the evils of segregation. But I do know what it means to a middle aged white boy; and it feels good - dang good. But I know this is not the end of the journey. This is just a place to pause and celebrate how far we've come.

In his last public appearance, LBJ, speaking of the Civil Rights struggle made a remarkable prophecy:
Let's watch what's been done, and see that it is preserved, but let's say we have just begun, and let's go on. Until every boy and girl born in this land can stand on the same level ground, our job will not be done.

We've proved that great progress is possible, we know how much remains to be done. And if our efforts continue, and if our will is strong, and if our hearts are right, and if courage remains our constant companion -- then I am confident we shall overcome.
As I watched the roll call of the Civil Rights movment arrive for the inauguration, I could not hep but remember the three men who made today possible; I'm positive I saw them standing there next to The President as he took the Oath of Office: Jack, Martin and Bobby as they passed the torch of hope to a new man.

When it's all over today, I'm going to drive to a town five miles north of me and go to the city park. And I'm going to drink from the same fountain from which Clarence and Ellen could not drink. And I'm going to say, "Free at last, free at last; Thank God Almighty, Free at Last!"

I rarely drink alcohol for many reasons, but I purchased a bottle of very good champagne for this day. I have opened it and filled three champagne glasses. One glass is for me. The other two are for Clarence and Ellen. And I know that they are right here with me.

So, here's to you, Clarence and Ellen.

PS - If I were the new President, I'd gather my wife and kids tonight and we'd all seep in the Lincoln bed!



19 January 2009

Rosanne Rosannadanna's father and the Schismatics

We are probably all old enough to remember the original cast of Saturday Night Life. Hands down, my favourite cast member was Guilda Radner. What a tragedy that she died so young of ovarian cancer. One of her characters was a wonderful Italian American reporter, Rosanne Rodannadana. (There really is a connection here, folks!)

A communication was issued today by the Communion Partners. The release begins
On behalf of the Advisory Committee of the Communion Partner Rectors, and on behalf of our Bishops and Primatial colleagues, we wish to acknowledge the remarks recently published from Bishop Iker and Bishop Duncan at the Charleston conference hosted by ‘Mere Anglicanism.’ They speak of wanting the Communion Partners and Common Cause to support one another.
The Communion partners wasted no time in making their views known as the conference was this past weekend (as in, last Friday - Sunday). The information about the conference is here.

Leading participants were Mr. Mark Lawrence, Mr. Robert Duncan, The Rt. Rev'd Michael Nazir Ali, Mr. Jack Iker, The Most Rev'd Valentino Mokiwa, and The Most Rev'd Benjamin Kwashi. That's a pretty impressive cohort of schismatics.

Also, of note, was Dr. R. Albert Mohler, Jr, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. His talk was entitled: Global Anglicanism: Ecclesiological Renewal. That certainly gives the schismatics away - they really want to be Southern Baptists playing high church. (See Cany's post on Mohler, here.)

At this point the press release gets interesting:
For our part we will continue to pray for solid progress at the level of Covenant Design Committee work and for the Instruments of Communion, especially the Primates Meeting shortly to commence. We cannot know how the efforts associated with Common Cause will turn out, including the idea of building a ‘new province,’ but we note with interest that recent news indicates the Archbishop of Canterbury has suggested ways for this endeavor to move forward in relationship to the Instruments of Communion. Together with ACI, we have been concerned that failure to attend to the integrity of Dioceses which see women’s ordination a matter still in reception, is creating unnecessary stress and strain. We ask that the wider Anglican Communion offer guidance here, as a variegated polity elsewhere appears to be both possible and charitably negotiated.
They seem to read a tacit (at least) approval of their schism by The Most Rev'd and Right Hounourable Rowan Williams, Primate of All England and Archbishop of Canterbury by his remarks that there is a procedure to become a province of the Anglican Communion. Certainly the Archbishop did not overtly encourage the schismatics.

But notice that emphasized bit. Apparently, the whole schismatic organization has a major crack in its veneer. Women's ordination s going to be the first leak in the ship of Calvinists. Could this really be an iceberg?

But, that crack just keeps getting larger:
We do not know how the proposal for a new province will be received nor are we entirely clear what its proponents are proposing; that is probably unavoidable given the hardships all around. We understand that many see the situation as demanding this option. For our part, we accept the promise of those associated with this movement that they will honor our own commitments. Communion Partners will pray for the Common Cause proponents and will assume that promise of cooperation entails a charitable acceptance that another way forward is to be honored and that we can move forward on parallel tracks and not ‘recruit’ from each others’ daily purpose, honoring the jurisdictional integrities of respective bishops. God will be in charge of the next season, as He has always been.
This points out one of the major problems of the schismatic movement: Secrecy. The leaders of this new organization wish the support of everyone (and even go so far as to fabricate the amount of support they have), but they wish to keep the underlings in ignorance as to what is really going on. Why?

Well, there are two obvious reasons:

First, ++Williams has pledged the group complete support but asked them to keep it quite until all the ducks are in a row. That's possible but not bloody likely.

The second reason is that the leaders know their situation is virtually hopeless and that if the hopefulness is known, the schismatics will flee Duncanland in droves. That would seem to me to be the most logical conclusion. We know what happened when the Titanic went down and Duncan cannot abide that - his ego is too great and narcissistic people must preserve the appearance of total control.

The secrecy is also one hallmark of a cult; and as Fred pointed out, this group has most of the overt symptoms of a classic cult.

If I were asked to be a member of such a group, before I singed on the dotted line, I would like to know what the plans are. Look at poor Mary Surratt who rented a room to John Wilkes Booth without knowing all the details.

The statement concludes:
When the Primates meet in February we anticipate that our separate ways of moving forward will be acknowledged and honored. We pledge our prayers for all involved and ask God’s blessing on all of us in a very difficult time. With gratitude for his grace and mercy, again this 2009 Epiphany we remain, yours in Christ, on behalf of Communion Partners.
I find it astounding that, in light of all the issues they have raised, this group is still following the schismatics like lemmings. They expect their concerns to be "honored." That's blind trust, if you ask me.

The press statement is signed by The Rt. Rev'd Bruce MacPherson, Russell Levenson and Christopher Seitz.

It is interesting that this bears both the nihil obstat and imprimatur of +MacPherson, a TEC bishop who has stated he will not lead Louisiana out of TEC.

When we examine the emerging organization: there is no organization. There is no unanimity. All there is is blind trust. Unfortunately, it will be the small players and innocent laity who crash and burn in this. The leaders are in excellent shape and believe me, they have contingency plans.

So what do Rosanne Rosannadanna and her father have to do with all of this? At the end of her news reports each week, she would conclude with these words:
It's just like my daddy would always say. Every night when he would tuck me into bed, he would say, "Rosanne Rosannadanna, if it's not one thing, it's another."
"And that's the truth," quoth Edith Ann, when one deals with the schismatics. The fissures will just get larger and new ones will appear.

My thanks to John Delmore for alerting me to this small, yet revealing press release.

UPDATE:

In a related matter, the General Synod of the Church of England will meet in early February. In the press release concerning a variety of issues to be debated, we find this very interesting statement.
The Churches of the Anglican Communion were asked in March 2008 if they were able, in principle, to commit to the Covenant process and to say if there were any elements which in their view would need extensive change in order to make viable the process of adoption by their Synods. The General Synod will consider a take note motion, moved by the Bishop of Rochester on behalf of the House of Bishops, on a report from the House, to which is attached a draft Church of England response to these questions. The draft response welcomes the direction of travel of the Covenant while flagging up a number of points which still require attention.
This is interesting to me in light of Duncan's statement in December that there is no need for a covenant. He said the time for a covenant was past.

18 January 2009

Epiphany II

The Second Sunday of Epiphany
Omnis terra


1 Samuel 3:1-10 (11-20); Psalm 139:1-5, 12-17; 1 Corinthians 6:12-20; John 1:43-51


Today’s gospel reading is a delicious story. We encounter enthusiasm, prejudice, and extraordinary insight all in one short story. It is sometimes good for us to remember that we get above ourselves when we regard the people of our Lord’s day as being so inferior to ourselves as not to be taken too seriously. Obviously we know a good deal more than they did about all sorts of things. Yet we share not only a common humanity but those very same traits that enliven and sometimes sully our day-to-day lives. Philip and Nathanael are not unlike you and me, prone to bursts of enthusiasm and almost unconscious prejudice.

Philip’s encounter with Jesus was obviously dramatic and life changing. Jesus was direct. He met Philip and told him to join Jesus’ small band of followers. There may have been more to the encounter that added to the extraordinary excitement that sent Philip off to find Nathanael, but however long or short the encounter, Philip was hooked. So off he ran to find his friend.

Nathanael thinks Philip is crazy. To a pure Jew, the inhabitants of Nazareth were not only country folk with a country accent, they were a racially mixed community. The same sort of prejudice that we encounter, and perhaps exhibit in unguarded moments, caused Nathanael to blurt out, “Can any good come out of Nazareth?”

It is interesting that the writer of the fourth gospel includes this detail. There’s no attempt to whitewash the resumes of the disciples. Despite our stained-glass windows and their depictions of the first Christians, we encounter them as real people, warts and all. How could Jesus choose people who demonstrate the same failings we meet in human beings in our daily lives? How could Jesus choose us?

Philip risked rejection when he tackled Nathanael. He risked being embarrassed. Today, in our setting, he would risk being accused of trying to force his religion on others, of being “evangelical” or even a crank. Yet Philip seemed to be sure that if he could get Nathanael to meet Jesus, he would be convinced that even if this Jesus was the son of Joseph from Nazareth he was also the person Jews had hoped for since Moses.

Jesus saw in Nathanael a character that was totally honest and probably blunt, “an Israelite in whom is no guile.” That description is about all we shall know about Nathanael, except that he was probably also called Bartholomew – and that he had a low view of people from Nazareth.

We usually associate St. Peter as the follower of Jesus who blurted out that Jesus was the Messiah, the one yearned for, the one sent from God to establish the Kingdom. Yet in this story, a new convert, amazed that Jesus knew where he came from – under the fig tree where Philip found him – blurts out, “Rabbi, you are the Son of God! You are the King of Israel!”

Jesus answers Nathanael by recalling the story of Jacob and Bethel, who placed his head on a stone, dreamed that he wrestled with an angel and saw angels ascending and descending on what seemed to be a ladder. This all seems pretty obscure to us, but to a faithful Jew, the story of Jacob is one of redemption and calling, of God reaching into a human life in a transforming way. Bethel means “the place of God.”

In our baptisms, we too encountered the living God. A “Philip” cared enough about us to bring us to the place where God is, the thin place which was there was a font or basin filled with water made holy by priestly blessing, our Bethel. Perhaps our Bethel is the church where we worship today. In our baptism, Jesus or “God with us” looked into our souls and judged us to be the person he was calling. Like the disciples, like Nathanael, we had the potential to be, or were if we were baptized as adults, the sort of person Jesus calls to be his intimate followers.

A great Anglican theologian of the 16th century, Richard Hooker, described all worship as our encounter with angels ascending and descending. Or to put it simply, it is the action in which we participate in the worship of heaven and experience the sort of fellowship we hope one day to experience after death.

But the thrust of our lessons today is that we are now “in eternal life” as the priestly absolution puts it in the Eucharist. We are forgiven our sins in order that we may be kept in Eternal Life. In forgiveness, in being looked into by Jesus just as Nathanael was looked into, we encounter the power to be changed. Jesus looks at us and says, “I saw you in your garage” or “I saw you at the supermarket.”

We are challenged to blurt out our faith that even though Jesus was from northern Israel centuries ago, he is the Son of God and he is our King. With that challenge comes the bounden duty and service of representing Jesus to others. He calls us because he knows us. To him, “all hearts are open, all desires are known and from him no secrets are hid.” He sees our potential and our prejudices, our talents, and our sins; and chooses us.

That is amazing. If the Messiah can be born in the backwaters of Nazareth in a mixed community, anyone can live in Jesus as he lives in us.

Jesus calls us to be Nathanaels, whose prejudice about people in the past, whom we look down on in our 21st century hubris, can be changed by an encounter with the Lord. Today we encounter Jesus at the font in baptism and Sunday by Sunday in bread and wine, those simple elements, like a stone, in which we may encounter the living God.

Such an encounter calls us to engage people in the totality of their being, whatever their race, background, class, wealth, or poverty, and to bring them to Jesus. Bringing people to Jesus is evangelism, but a whole evangelism for Jesus cares about poverty, disease, hurt, grief and sin, and calls us to be agents who cooperate with him as his Kingdom comes “on earth as it is in heaven.”

We do this by becoming the presence of Jesus and as we touch life where we find it and become healers, feeders, lovers, and redeemers.


-- Fr. Tony Clavier is rector of St. Paul's Episcopal Church, La Porte, Indiana, in the Diocese of Northern Indiana. He is also dean of the Michigan City deanery. His email address is anthony.clavier@gmail.com