An article from today's Lambeth Witness from Neil and Steve:
In his second presidential address, Archbishop Rowan Williams called people on differing sides of the current debate to a place of “mutual generosity” rooted in their shared commitment to Jesus Christ. The cost of this generosity for the “not so traditional believer,” he stated, might be bearing up under “accusations of sacrificing the needs of an oppressed group for the sake of a false or delusional unity.”
In Canada, the Archbishop’s imagined accusations are not hypothetical but real and immediate. The cost of compromise is abandonment of ministry that is already taking place.
It seems that the Archbishop is asking parishes in the Diocese of New Westminster that currently offer canonically-authorised blessings of same-sex relationships to withdraw from that ministry. Several other Canadian dioceses are also very near to concluding their synodical processes and stand poised to affirm blessings; the Archbishop is asking these dioceses to cease and desist.
In other words, the hand of pastoral care currently being extended in good faith to Canadian LGBT Christians is to be snatched back. The Archbishop is suggesting that the entire Canadian church abandon its decades-long process of pastoral discernment which, ironically, was encouraged by Lambeth Conferences since 1978.
This costly generosity might seem reasonable – as it apparently does for Archbishop Rowan – if one fails to connect the actions of progressive bishops with the needs of people in their care. What was missing from the Archbishop’s address was any reflection on the actual needs of LGBT Christians. He seems to understand the sympathetic convictions of bishops who wish to move forward, but he seems not to understand that their actions are connected to real people with real needs.
It is reported that clergy in some other provinces bless same-sex unions regularly, though quietly (sometimes) and unofficially. Their unholy hypocrisy will now be rewarded – any moratorium will not apply to them. The Canadian Church, which has been honest and transparent about its process and intentions, will now bear the brunt of the Communion’s displeasure, the target of such retrograde attitudes as are maintained by the WCG report.
Canadians therefore wait with hope for words of encouragement from the Lambeth Conference concerning the pastoral care of LGBT Christians. The generosity that some are asking for is unreasonably expensive – what they are asking for is the sacrifice of our integrity.
Thursday, 31 July 2008
Wednesday, 30 July 2008
The Other Gay Bishop
Chris and Bishop Terry Brown, at the Inclusive Church display
I just ran across this in another blog, but having posted here about Bishop Terry Brown of Malaita, I thought our readers would be interested too. Terry was for years Asia-Pacific person for the (Canadian) Primate's World Relief and Development Fund.
[From Bishop Alan Wilson's blog
http://bishopalan.blogspot.com/2008/07/wisdom-of-solomons.html ]
Still searching for the pick of original voices to inform our thinking, I came across an engaging and interesting contribtion by Terry Brown, Bishop of Malaita, Church of the Province of Melanesia, to the Hearing on Lambeth Reflections Draft, yesterday. This province has seen martyrs this century, seven Melanesian brothers killed by a sectarian warlord in 2003. This province has a consistent and honourable record of Christian witness and maryrdom, going back to Bishop Patteson. +Terry says:
== == == ==
I was confirmed in The Episcopal Church, by a black bishop of Massachusetts. I was made deacon and ordained a priest in the Anglican Church of Canada, in the diocese of Fredericton, a Loyalist diocese, by a bishop whose ancestors ran away from the American Revolution because they distrusted liberalism, political and otherwise.
I was consecrated a bishop in the Church of the Province of Melanesia, a global south diocese, where all the Millennium Development Goals score about 3 out of 10, even though we are great dancers.
And to make matters worse, my own sexuality is "dodgy". I live in and am a part of all four worlds -- The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of Melanesia and the pained world of gay and lesbian laity, deacons, priests and bishops. Yet I am a bishop of a diocese that is full of life and has had much growth. In my last 12 years as bishop, I have confirmed 10,000 candidates. The diocese is deeply involved in evangelism, education, medical work, liturgy and peace and reconciliation.
My life as a bishop in all four worlds is possible only because of my faith in Jesus Christ. I had a conversion experience in which I felt deeply loved by God. That, the Eucharist, the life of Christian friendship and community, and Scripture, have sustained me through thick and thin.
From my perspective, do I have any suggestions for the text of the final Reflection?
“Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all these things will be added unto you.” There are many other competing kingdoms, do not bow to them.
As much as is in you, try to maintain communion and friendship with all, whether inside or outside the church, however deep the disagreement.
Reject the Puritan option. We are Anglicans, not Puritans.
Exercise restraint and urge others to do so, whether locally or globally. Not everything has to be said or written about.
Be very careful in using typologies to classify people, theologies and churches. We are all the children of God, redeemed, with all of creation, by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If you have not done so, accept all the gay and lesbian people in your midst, in all their complexity, pain and celebration.
Finally, let the conversations (even debate) continue. Television has finally come to the Solomon Islands, so we now have the privilege of seeing BBC interview both Gene Robinson and Greg Venables. In our case, I do not think the church will thereby collapse. But in other situations, that may not be the case, and the endless talking to the media of both may be destructive. That is my final suggestion -- remember that whatever you say publicly in this wired age, will go to every corner of the world. Honesty and prudence are both Christian virtues. We need to learn to balance them.
== == == == end == == == ==
posted by Chris
More on Dr Jenny Te Paa
Jenny Te Paa, Caro Hall, Neil, Bob, in the nave of St Stephen's, Canterbury
The 4pm "Alongside at Lambeth" presentations (as organised by the Inclusive Church chaplain, Caro Hall of Integrity USA) in St Stephen's have been one of the best events for those of us on the Lambeth fringes. There's usually ten or so people at 4pm, but the numbers tend to grow in the next few minutes, and today we ended up with just under 30 people for Dr Jenny Te Paa.
Neil has already summarised a lot of what was good in Jenny's presentation. I wanted to add (along with the photo) my favourite line from her this afternoon: "we need to get rid of the cultural cringe". This is where one individual is talking to someone from a different culture, and they say something that you find outrageous, or just plain wrong. There is a certain tendency to cringe away from calling their statement for what they are, and just make non-committal conversational noises, "oh how interesting" or something like that. She urged us, if we hear something that is at odds with our perception of the world, to call the statement for what it is, and not cringe away. "That is your truth", she said. "You don't want to be nasty or hurtful or boorish, but do speak from your own perceptions, and don't be afraid to contradict people." Cultural cringe has certainly happened in the West with some vociferous bishops, and we need to stop it.
Or to quote Stephen Bates from a couple of years ago, at that point Religion Editor of the Guardian: "why is it that no-one has told Peter Akinola that he's a bigot. Is it because he's black?"
So: No.More.Cultural.Cringing.
Chris Ambidge
.
"End the madness!"
The ups and downs of the past several days in Canterbury have been almost nauseatingly abrupt, like a midway ride out of control. First came the intense anger and disappointment of the Windsor Continuation Group report; about which we reported on below. Then came the Archbishop of Canterbury's second presidential address, which offered real reasons for hope and understanding. Today, further reflection on the address - what wasn't said, as well as what was - has led to renewed anxieties about the future of pastoral care for Canadian LGBT Christians.
Whether or not these anxieties are shared by Canadian bishops here is a matter of speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were. After all, Dr. Williams' comments explicitly painted the issue as one of "sexual ethics," pointedly avoiding any mention of the extra-provincial incursions, which are acting like a knife attempting to cut parishes out of their home dioceses. He also made a point of reiterating his support for an Anglican covenant - and it is more and more apparant that his notion of a covenant is one which includes punishments for those dioceses and provinces which refuse to toe some extra-provincial doctrinal line.
Today I heard an address by Dr. Jenny Te Pa, a former member of the Lambeth Commission, which produced the Windsor Report. About the Windsor Continuation Group, she described their recommendations as coming "out of left field," and asked, "How can you continue something and not even be in conversation with the people who started it?" And about the whole debate in general, she characterised it as not being about sexuality at all, but about "who gets to be the pope of the Anglican Communion." She stressed that the best way to confront "bully bishops" was to "call their bluff," otherwise what she called the Communion's current "tribal politics" would continue.
Perhaps what resonated most with me from Dr. Te Pa's remarks was her obvious exasperation and sorrow over the amount of energy and resources that have been poured into this debate, diverting us from the real mission and ministry of the Church, and thus undermining our credibility in the world. "We just need to end the madness," she said of this protracted debate. "Let's just agree we're all God's children, our baptisms are all valid, and get on with it!" I, too, am often sick at heart with the way our Church has enabled parochial (and I use that in both senses of the word) insularity; and a substitution of power politics for real ministry. There have been times I've been tempted to say, "I don't want to be a member of this debating club anymore," and find some other outlet for my energy and time in what remaining years God may grant me.
The fact is, though, that what we are talking about is not, indeed sexuality - nor even who wants to be the pope of the Anglican Communion. What we struggle and strive for is the full inclusion of the most vulnerable, the most outcast, the most oppressed. Not simply gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people - but the woman beaten, raped, and outcast from her community; the child dying from a disease that could be cured by a simple drug; the religious or political minority imprisoned and tortured. If we sacrifice one person because of who they are, what they experience, or what they believe, we are defying the teachings and commission of Jesus; and making unclean what God has made clean.
Neil Fernyhough
Whether or not these anxieties are shared by Canadian bishops here is a matter of speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised if they were. After all, Dr. Williams' comments explicitly painted the issue as one of "sexual ethics," pointedly avoiding any mention of the extra-provincial incursions, which are acting like a knife attempting to cut parishes out of their home dioceses. He also made a point of reiterating his support for an Anglican covenant - and it is more and more apparant that his notion of a covenant is one which includes punishments for those dioceses and provinces which refuse to toe some extra-provincial doctrinal line.
Today I heard an address by Dr. Jenny Te Pa, a former member of the Lambeth Commission, which produced the Windsor Report. About the Windsor Continuation Group, she described their recommendations as coming "out of left field," and asked, "How can you continue something and not even be in conversation with the people who started it?" And about the whole debate in general, she characterised it as not being about sexuality at all, but about "who gets to be the pope of the Anglican Communion." She stressed that the best way to confront "bully bishops" was to "call their bluff," otherwise what she called the Communion's current "tribal politics" would continue.
Perhaps what resonated most with me from Dr. Te Pa's remarks was her obvious exasperation and sorrow over the amount of energy and resources that have been poured into this debate, diverting us from the real mission and ministry of the Church, and thus undermining our credibility in the world. "We just need to end the madness," she said of this protracted debate. "Let's just agree we're all God's children, our baptisms are all valid, and get on with it!" I, too, am often sick at heart with the way our Church has enabled parochial (and I use that in both senses of the word) insularity; and a substitution of power politics for real ministry. There have been times I've been tempted to say, "I don't want to be a member of this debating club anymore," and find some other outlet for my energy and time in what remaining years God may grant me.
The fact is, though, that what we are talking about is not, indeed sexuality - nor even who wants to be the pope of the Anglican Communion. What we struggle and strive for is the full inclusion of the most vulnerable, the most outcast, the most oppressed. Not simply gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people - but the woman beaten, raped, and outcast from her community; the child dying from a disease that could be cured by a simple drug; the religious or political minority imprisoned and tortured. If we sacrifice one person because of who they are, what they experience, or what they believe, we are defying the teachings and commission of Jesus; and making unclean what God has made clean.
Neil Fernyhough
Affirming Anglican Identity
The following is the text of an article printed in The Lambeth Witness, the daily newsletter of the Inclusive Church Network.
AFFIRMING ANGLICAN IDENTITY - A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE
The coming together of inclusive Anglican groups in Canterbury has been an amazing testimony to the cooperation that has emerged in pursuit of a shared goal. That goal includes the specific concerns about full inclusion, but now also includes a broader concern – one which has been feeding the crisis in our Communion. That concern is the attack on the orthodox and comprehensive tradition of Anglicanism by those seeking to remake our Communion into a confessional church.
It has been encouraging to see the emergence of organisations – Inclusive Church in the UK and the Chicago Consultation in the US - dedicated to addressing this wider, systemic issue. Last October, about fifty Canadian Anglicans came together for a conference called The Widening Circle. From that event has emerged a similar movement in my own country, taking its name from the conference. We identified our goals as affirming and reclaiming the comprehensive, inclusive tradition of our branch of the Christian faith; asserting the autonomy of national churches with respect to doctrine and discipline; and resisting a narrow and exclusive version of Anglicanism, expressed in my country primarily as opposition to the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church.
We have been clear from the start that our movement does not consider itself factional. Indeed, we feel the Anglican Communion needs to move beyond factionalism in order to be truly inclusive of those who consider themselves conservative or liberal, catholic or evangelical, traditional or progressive. To say that Anglicanism is comprehensive means just that: we contain within our church the multitude of the human response to God; and it is that diversity which we celebrate and affirm.
Neil Fernyhough
AFFIRMING ANGLICAN IDENTITY - A CANADIAN PERSPECTIVE
The coming together of inclusive Anglican groups in Canterbury has been an amazing testimony to the cooperation that has emerged in pursuit of a shared goal. That goal includes the specific concerns about full inclusion, but now also includes a broader concern – one which has been feeding the crisis in our Communion. That concern is the attack on the orthodox and comprehensive tradition of Anglicanism by those seeking to remake our Communion into a confessional church.
It has been encouraging to see the emergence of organisations – Inclusive Church in the UK and the Chicago Consultation in the US - dedicated to addressing this wider, systemic issue. Last October, about fifty Canadian Anglicans came together for a conference called The Widening Circle. From that event has emerged a similar movement in my own country, taking its name from the conference. We identified our goals as affirming and reclaiming the comprehensive, inclusive tradition of our branch of the Christian faith; asserting the autonomy of national churches with respect to doctrine and discipline; and resisting a narrow and exclusive version of Anglicanism, expressed in my country primarily as opposition to the full inclusion of gays and lesbians in the life of the church.
We have been clear from the start that our movement does not consider itself factional. Indeed, we feel the Anglican Communion needs to move beyond factionalism in order to be truly inclusive of those who consider themselves conservative or liberal, catholic or evangelical, traditional or progressive. To say that Anglicanism is comprehensive means just that: we contain within our church the multitude of the human response to God; and it is that diversity which we celebrate and affirm.
Neil Fernyhough
Fruits of Generous Listening: ABC's 2nd Address
The Archbishop of Canterbury’s second presidential address, delivered Tuesday, has been receiving a lot of press, much of it confused.
While LGBT people are appropriately wary of ++Rowan’s enthusiasm for “council and Covenant” and the entrenchment that seems to be developing around the Windsor moratoria, his address does seem to reflect that he has been listening to our concerns … in part.
Absent, importantly, is an adequate appreciation for the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian couples. He consequently underestimates the difficult position in which the Canadian Church now finds itself.
For the record, here is the response of the Inclusive Church Network, of which Integrity Canada is a part. Aside from a few commas, my contribution was the cheeky title. :)
Steve Schuh
FRUITS OF GENEROUS LISTENING
Asking the bishops gathered at Lambeth Conference, “Where is Lambeth ’08 going to speak from?” the Archbishop of Canterbury answered his own question in his second presidential address delivered Tuesday, July 29 – advocating a discipline of mutual generosity and a call to speak “from the centre,” which he defined as “from the heart of our identity as Anglicans.”
We are much encouraged by this address by the Archbishop. The Inclusive Church Network applauds the recognition that those described as “the not so traditional believers” hold a theological position faithful to both our shared Anglican identity and our Christian witness. Despite extraordinary pressure to expel or expunge our witness from the Anglican Communion, today’s acknowledgment by the Archbishop of the validity and faithfulness of that witness is a source of deep encouragement.
We recognize that there are also faithful Anglicans who hold positions in opposition to our understandings of how we live out our lives of witness to the saving grace of God in Christ Jesus made present in our lives, our vocations, and our relationships. Our witness here at Lambeth Conference has been grounded in our deep desire to build relationships with our Anglican brothers and sisters across the differences that challenge us as we come together for mission and ministry.
We remain convinced that those differences need not inevitably lead to divisions and that the bonds of mutual affection that have knit the global Anglican Communion together are strong enough to include all God’s beloved at the banquet table.
We continue to pray for our bishops as they journey through these final days of the Lambeth Conference, that their witness to the world might be one of inclusion and compassion as we proclaim together God’s justice and live God’s love. § -The Inclusive Church Network
While LGBT people are appropriately wary of ++Rowan’s enthusiasm for “council and Covenant” and the entrenchment that seems to be developing around the Windsor moratoria, his address does seem to reflect that he has been listening to our concerns … in part.
Absent, importantly, is an adequate appreciation for the pastoral needs of gay and lesbian couples. He consequently underestimates the difficult position in which the Canadian Church now finds itself.
For the record, here is the response of the Inclusive Church Network, of which Integrity Canada is a part. Aside from a few commas, my contribution was the cheeky title. :)
Steve Schuh
FRUITS OF GENEROUS LISTENING
Asking the bishops gathered at Lambeth Conference, “Where is Lambeth ’08 going to speak from?” the Archbishop of Canterbury answered his own question in his second presidential address delivered Tuesday, July 29 – advocating a discipline of mutual generosity and a call to speak “from the centre,” which he defined as “from the heart of our identity as Anglicans.”
We are much encouraged by this address by the Archbishop. The Inclusive Church Network applauds the recognition that those described as “the not so traditional believers” hold a theological position faithful to both our shared Anglican identity and our Christian witness. Despite extraordinary pressure to expel or expunge our witness from the Anglican Communion, today’s acknowledgment by the Archbishop of the validity and faithfulness of that witness is a source of deep encouragement.
We recognize that there are also faithful Anglicans who hold positions in opposition to our understandings of how we live out our lives of witness to the saving grace of God in Christ Jesus made present in our lives, our vocations, and our relationships. Our witness here at Lambeth Conference has been grounded in our deep desire to build relationships with our Anglican brothers and sisters across the differences that challenge us as we come together for mission and ministry.
We remain convinced that those differences need not inevitably lead to divisions and that the bonds of mutual affection that have knit the global Anglican Communion together are strong enough to include all God’s beloved at the banquet table.
We continue to pray for our bishops as they journey through these final days of the Lambeth Conference, that their witness to the world might be one of inclusion and compassion as we proclaim together God’s justice and live God’s love. § -The Inclusive Church Network
Tuesday, 29 July 2008
optimism and pessimism
Chris and Bob with Bishop Barry Clarke of Montreal
Steve and the Canadian bishop of Saskatoon
Ron and Bishop Terry Brown of Malaita
Steve and Bishop Dennis Drainville, co-adjutor bishop of Quebec
Steve and I were staffing the Marketplace display for Inclusive Church in the afternoon, while the second half of the African voices presentation were taking place. The bishops had the afternoon off, so the traffic was reasonably brisk. [not all these photos were today]
Generally speaking, there are three types of visitors: those who respond in kind when you greet them with "good afternoon", and who slow down, or not, but don't really engage with the display staff. This is hardly surprising, there is a LOT of material in the Marketplace, and the bishops have more programming than they can possibly attend. Then there are those who come by, somehow see the dread words gay or lesbian, or who actually figger out what "Inclusive Church" means. Their eyes get real big, and they either say hello in a rather strangled way and scuttle past, or they pass by on the other side. One of the Canadian bishop's wives did precisely that this afternoon.
Then there are those who talk to us at length. We've been fortunate to talk to several bishops (not always at the display). I've heard comments both gloomy and positive: one bishop thinks that people are not prepared to make many concessions and is waiting for something nasty and directive to emerge. Another bishop finds his Indaba group discussions to be not bad, that while there was some crankiness about the structure set up for discussions, they're prepared [now] to go along with it, and listen carefully to others of different viewpoints. Bishop Brown of Malaita was at the 1998 Conference, and says that while he could wish for better discussions, the atmosphere is so much less tense and hostile this year than ten years ago, it has to be a better conference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)