Although the WCG's "preliminary observations" are creating a bit of a stir in Lambeth's otherwise calm sea, there is really little reason to get too worked up about them. The notes are basically abstracts of comments made in the bishop's indaba groups, shaped to suggest a way forward. They have absolutely no authority, nor do they represent a singular proposal. They're just conversation starters, so you might say they've been successful!
In terms of process, it's kind of like sausage-making. Comments from the bishop's discussion today about their comments on version 2 will be collated with further conversation from the indaba groups later this week, then reprocessed into a third version of an actual report which will be sent to the Anglican Consultative Counsel next spring. So there is lots of time for comment and critique, and from what we're hearing so far, there's lots and lots of critique.
In other words, this so-called bomb is really just a firecracker -- it's made a little noise, and we'll soon move on. Nothing much to see here.
Still, the Inclusive Church Network, of which Integrity Canada is a part, will be making a statement in the morning -- nothing hysterical, just ensuring the LGBT voice is heard above the din of the professional fear-mongers. Integrity friends now have a little context to put it all in proper perspective.
Steve Schuh
Showing posts with label Lambeth Conference. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lambeth Conference. Show all posts
Monday, 28 July 2008
Bishop Michael Ingham on the WCG Notes
Remarks by Bishop Michael Ingham
At the Windsor Continuation Group Hearing
Lambeth Conference
July 29, 2008
I came to this conference hoping to take back to the Diocese I serve something of value with respect to the difficulties facing our Communion. Unfortunately, the document handed out today is a non-starter where I live.
Let me give four reasons.
1. The Windsor Report is just that – a report. It is not yet an agreed policy within the Communion. It is not yet a doctrine. Some of our Provinces have responded to it, some have not, and many of the responses raise critical questions that have not so far been addressed. And yet the Windsor Report is being introduced today as an agreed benchmark from which it is assumed we can move forward. This is not so.
2. The document we have today is punitive in tone, setting out penalties and the like, instead of inviting us into deeper communion with one another through mutual understanding in the Body of Christ. Furthermore, it entrenches the principle of outside interventions. The suggestion of a Pastoral Forum in fact institutionalizes external incursions into the life of our churches.
3. It seeks to impose a singular uniformity upon the complex diversity of our Communion. I quite understand that in some parts of the Anglican Communion homosexuality is subject to criminal law and cultural prohibition. However, I live in a country where homosexual people enjoy the same rights and responsibilities under the law as every other citizen. To discriminate against homosexual people, as this document suggests, is no more acceptable in than to discriminate against women, black people or Jews. If this becomes the position of the Communion, it will put the Anglican Church of Canada in the position of having to support and defend irrational prejudice and bigotry in the eyes of our nation.
We already live with a good deal of diverse practice across the Anglican Communion – in the ordination of women, the re-marriage of divorced persons, and the admission of the baptized and unconfirmed to Communion. Why can we not live with a similar diversity in this matter too?
4. It ignores reality. Whatever this document says, illegal incursions will continue. We have heard already how they continue to happen even in places that maintain the traditional position of the Church on homosexuality. And furthermore, gay and lesbian people will not go away, nor will they be healed, because they are not sick. It is the church that is suffering from blindness and prejudice, and it is we who need to repent and be healed.
To conclude, this document will not invite us into mutual dialogue and a search for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is an old-world institutional response to a new-world reality in which people are being set free from hatred and violence. It will not do to impose a rigid uniformity on a body so diverse as this Communion. The document will further divide us if it attempts to do so
At the Windsor Continuation Group Hearing
Lambeth Conference
July 29, 2008
I came to this conference hoping to take back to the Diocese I serve something of value with respect to the difficulties facing our Communion. Unfortunately, the document handed out today is a non-starter where I live.
Let me give four reasons.
1. The Windsor Report is just that – a report. It is not yet an agreed policy within the Communion. It is not yet a doctrine. Some of our Provinces have responded to it, some have not, and many of the responses raise critical questions that have not so far been addressed. And yet the Windsor Report is being introduced today as an agreed benchmark from which it is assumed we can move forward. This is not so.
2. The document we have today is punitive in tone, setting out penalties and the like, instead of inviting us into deeper communion with one another through mutual understanding in the Body of Christ. Furthermore, it entrenches the principle of outside interventions. The suggestion of a Pastoral Forum in fact institutionalizes external incursions into the life of our churches.
3. It seeks to impose a singular uniformity upon the complex diversity of our Communion. I quite understand that in some parts of the Anglican Communion homosexuality is subject to criminal law and cultural prohibition. However, I live in a country where homosexual people enjoy the same rights and responsibilities under the law as every other citizen. To discriminate against homosexual people, as this document suggests, is no more acceptable in than to discriminate against women, black people or Jews. If this becomes the position of the Communion, it will put the Anglican Church of Canada in the position of having to support and defend irrational prejudice and bigotry in the eyes of our nation.
We already live with a good deal of diverse practice across the Anglican Communion – in the ordination of women, the re-marriage of divorced persons, and the admission of the baptized and unconfirmed to Communion. Why can we not live with a similar diversity in this matter too?
4. It ignores reality. Whatever this document says, illegal incursions will continue. We have heard already how they continue to happen even in places that maintain the traditional position of the Church on homosexuality. And furthermore, gay and lesbian people will not go away, nor will they be healed, because they are not sick. It is the church that is suffering from blindness and prejudice, and it is we who need to repent and be healed.
To conclude, this document will not invite us into mutual dialogue and a search for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. It is an old-world institutional response to a new-world reality in which people are being set free from hatred and violence. It will not do to impose a rigid uniformity on a body so diverse as this Communion. The document will further divide us if it attempts to do so
Saturday, 26 July 2008
Listening ... or not
Although it has been rightly lamented that few of the Lambeth Conference events are open to the public (or even to anyone other than bishops), it was my singular privilege to present a short paper at one of the bishops-only workshops, or “self-select sessions,” on Tuesday afternoon.
The invitation came from Canon Philip Groves from the Anglican Communion Office. Canon Groves is responsible for monitoring the Communion’s listening process (such as it is) and for providing resources to equip Anglicans to listen and dialogue on issues of sexuality. It is hoped that the just-published book, The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, will be a major contribution to this effort.
The third chapter of the book includes a lengthy discussion on Anglican methods of biblical interpretation. To illustrate how people who share a commitment to the authority of scripture and who use a similar method of interpretation might nevertheless come to different conclusions, the book includes a summary statement of the traditional understanding of the “witness of scripture” on the topic of homosexuality, as well as an alternative view, which is my contribution to the book (and re-published in the current Integrator here).
This was also to be the substance of Tuesday’s workshop and the reason for my invitation to this closed event.
Unfortunately, the workshop did not go as smoothly as we had hoped. About 40 bishops had settled in after a last minute room change, but after several minutes of introduction, some voiced frustration with the organization of the session and asked to hear more from Dr. Richard Burridge, Dean of King’s College (London) and the session’s named “subject matter expert.” Eventually the guest assigned to present the traditional view was invited to speak – though his material was interesting, it was considerably off-topic and added to the confusion. The facilitator improvised the missing material, and as I was approaching the lectern to present the alternative view, he quickly introduced me as being from Canada, a graduate of Regent College, and gay.
The “g-word” immediately prompted a snort from the back row and one of the bishops noisily gathered his things and left the room.
I paused, then nervously began my presentation, making it through without further interruption. Dr. Burridge then tried to bring the pieces together. The questions that ended the session, however, suggested that the point of the exercise had been largely lost in the confusion, frustration, and tension of the previous 90 minutes.
Even so, in a redeeming expression of pastoral care, at least six bishops approached me individually – or stopped me as I left the building – to thank me and apologize for their colleague who, ironically, had demonstrated how far the listening process has yet to go.
These bishops also demonstrated how far we have already come. Obviously the listening process has been engaged unevenly across the Communion, and some are ill-equipped for the task. But where we listen, respect, and care for one another – even, or especially, when we disagree – then we are becoming a church worthy of Him who demonstrated His great love for us and who calls us to love one another.
Steve Schuh
The invitation came from Canon Philip Groves from the Anglican Communion Office. Canon Groves is responsible for monitoring the Communion’s listening process (such as it is) and for providing resources to equip Anglicans to listen and dialogue on issues of sexuality. It is hoped that the just-published book, The Anglican Communion and Homosexuality, will be a major contribution to this effort.
The third chapter of the book includes a lengthy discussion on Anglican methods of biblical interpretation. To illustrate how people who share a commitment to the authority of scripture and who use a similar method of interpretation might nevertheless come to different conclusions, the book includes a summary statement of the traditional understanding of the “witness of scripture” on the topic of homosexuality, as well as an alternative view, which is my contribution to the book (and re-published in the current Integrator here).
This was also to be the substance of Tuesday’s workshop and the reason for my invitation to this closed event.
Unfortunately, the workshop did not go as smoothly as we had hoped. About 40 bishops had settled in after a last minute room change, but after several minutes of introduction, some voiced frustration with the organization of the session and asked to hear more from Dr. Richard Burridge, Dean of King’s College (London) and the session’s named “subject matter expert.” Eventually the guest assigned to present the traditional view was invited to speak – though his material was interesting, it was considerably off-topic and added to the confusion. The facilitator improvised the missing material, and as I was approaching the lectern to present the alternative view, he quickly introduced me as being from Canada, a graduate of Regent College, and gay.
The “g-word” immediately prompted a snort from the back row and one of the bishops noisily gathered his things and left the room.
I paused, then nervously began my presentation, making it through without further interruption. Dr. Burridge then tried to bring the pieces together. The questions that ended the session, however, suggested that the point of the exercise had been largely lost in the confusion, frustration, and tension of the previous 90 minutes.
Even so, in a redeeming expression of pastoral care, at least six bishops approached me individually – or stopped me as I left the building – to thank me and apologize for their colleague who, ironically, had demonstrated how far the listening process has yet to go.
These bishops also demonstrated how far we have already come. Obviously the listening process has been engaged unevenly across the Communion, and some are ill-equipped for the task. But where we listen, respect, and care for one another – even, or especially, when we disagree – then we are becoming a church worthy of Him who demonstrated His great love for us and who calls us to love one another.
Steve Schuh
Wednesday, 23 July 2008
Getting Into It
Day Three in Canterbury and I am (ostensibly) on the job! After a sleepless night on a torturous bed, my first priority was finding a new place to lay my head. Fortunately, the occupant upstairs was leaving, and - like Goldilocks - I was overjoyed to find a bed that was just right.
Despite getting just two or three hours of sleep, I found the haze of jetlag lifting, and the world seeming a little less surreal. After Morning Prayer with others from the Inclusive Church Network, I returned to my new room for a lie down, only to find that I overnapped for my first offcially scheduled duty, namely, to help staff the stall in what is called "the Marketplace."
The Marketplace is located about a ten minute walk away from the large, blue, twin-peaked tent in which the bishops are meeting. It is, as I wrote yesterday, truly a cross-section of the stunning diversity of Anglicanism. For instance, just a few steps away from the stall shared by Integrity, Changing Attitude, and (thanks to a few leaflets left by me on the table) The Widening Circle, is a stall dedicated to "helping" gays and lesbians change their sexual orientation.
I ran up the hill from my residence, sweat streaming off my face from the sudden slap of humidity, and entered the Kent University precincts. Suddenly, to my surprise, I stumbled into a field of purple. The bishops were seated at picnic tables and on the grass, enjoying their lunch. As I scurried along, I found myself just five feet away from a party including a rather shaggy, bearded, professorial-looking bishop. Yes, it was the Archbishop of Canterbury himself - and he and his cohort were blocking my route!
At the stall, I was happy to see a trickle of purple lanyards - indicative of bishops and their spouses - stop to chat. One African bishop picked up our handbill for the "Voices of Witness" film that Integrity USA will show this evening. I spoke with Davis Mac-Iyalla, a courageous Nigerian who has faced death threats, beatings, and imprisonment for standing up for gay and lesbian rights in his homeland. I also spoke with the Right Rev'd Christopher Senyonjo, retired Bishop of West Buganda in Uganda, who was deprived of his ministry for his stand in defence of gays and lesbians in his country.
These two men are witnesses to the incomparable role that the Church can play in advancing the mission of social justice. The courage and bravery of African gays and lesbians and their allies impresses me beyond measure. Their presence here at Lambeth demonstrates the claim that homosexuality either does not exist in Africa or is a foreign influence is a lie. Indeed, as I write, there are seven Africans seated in our communications centre, waiting for our nightly debriefing.
Tomorrow, the bishops are off to London - and so am I. Hopefully after a full, restful sleep.
Neil Fernyhough
Despite getting just two or three hours of sleep, I found the haze of jetlag lifting, and the world seeming a little less surreal. After Morning Prayer with others from the Inclusive Church Network, I returned to my new room for a lie down, only to find that I overnapped for my first offcially scheduled duty, namely, to help staff the stall in what is called "the Marketplace."
The Marketplace is located about a ten minute walk away from the large, blue, twin-peaked tent in which the bishops are meeting. It is, as I wrote yesterday, truly a cross-section of the stunning diversity of Anglicanism. For instance, just a few steps away from the stall shared by Integrity, Changing Attitude, and (thanks to a few leaflets left by me on the table) The Widening Circle, is a stall dedicated to "helping" gays and lesbians change their sexual orientation.
I ran up the hill from my residence, sweat streaming off my face from the sudden slap of humidity, and entered the Kent University precincts. Suddenly, to my surprise, I stumbled into a field of purple. The bishops were seated at picnic tables and on the grass, enjoying their lunch. As I scurried along, I found myself just five feet away from a party including a rather shaggy, bearded, professorial-looking bishop. Yes, it was the Archbishop of Canterbury himself - and he and his cohort were blocking my route!
At the stall, I was happy to see a trickle of purple lanyards - indicative of bishops and their spouses - stop to chat. One African bishop picked up our handbill for the "Voices of Witness" film that Integrity USA will show this evening. I spoke with Davis Mac-Iyalla, a courageous Nigerian who has faced death threats, beatings, and imprisonment for standing up for gay and lesbian rights in his homeland. I also spoke with the Right Rev'd Christopher Senyonjo, retired Bishop of West Buganda in Uganda, who was deprived of his ministry for his stand in defence of gays and lesbians in his country.
These two men are witnesses to the incomparable role that the Church can play in advancing the mission of social justice. The courage and bravery of African gays and lesbians and their allies impresses me beyond measure. Their presence here at Lambeth demonstrates the claim that homosexuality either does not exist in Africa or is a foreign influence is a lie. Indeed, as I write, there are seven Africans seated in our communications centre, waiting for our nightly debriefing.
Tomorrow, the bishops are off to London - and so am I. Hopefully after a full, restful sleep.
Neil Fernyhough
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)