Saturday, July 19, 2008
Tale of Two Covenants: The St. Andrews Revised Draft Fails its Purpose
There are radical changes between the original "Nassau Draft" of a proposed "Anglican Covenant," and the later revised version the "St. Andrews Draft."The GAFCON Theological Resources Group has generously provided an outstanding resource for those who are following the development of an Anglican Covenant. The idea of an Anglican Covenant was among the suggestions of The Windsor Report. The Archbishop of Canterbury appointed a "Draft Design Covenant" group that produced the original "Nassau Draft."
This draft was substantially changed once the apparatus of the Episcopal Church entered into the fray proposed a substantially revised draft now called the "St. Andrews Draft." It is not clear which draft is before the Lambeth Conference. But it's certainly clear after reading this analysis of the revised version in contrast to the original version that the Episcopal leadership not only know how to revise scripture and tradition, but also draft covenants.
The GAFCON Theological Resources Group opens their resource analysis with an overview of the dramatic changes between the original Nassau draft and the revised St. Andrews draft. This is followed by a deeper analysis of how the revised St. Andrews Draft fails to deliver the original mission.
This is an important resource and we've put copies of this resource on all the cafe tables - please read it closely. For Lambeth-watchers at home, it's important to know the difference between the "Nassau" original draft and the "St. Andrews" revised draft. Remember - a biblical (and now covenant) literate laity is powerful witness, as we saw in Jerusalem.
This Anglican Covenant process has been presented in a less-than-thrilling manner on purpose - so that all of us at home will not pay attention until it's too late. Remember also, it is in the apparatus of the Episcopal Church's interests to either push forward the revised draft or have no covenant at all. We are of the thought that if Archbishop of Canterbury is incapable or unwilling to stand up to the Episcopal Church's innovations that have broken up the Anglican Communion, how would he enforce a Covenant?
If the St. Andrews Revision is pushed forward, what' the point of having a Covenant at all?
One of the assumptions of a Covenant is that the member provinces are united in their membership, and that is simply not the case. One rarely draws up Covenants when conflict is breaking out on a myriad of fronts. A Covenant is based on a trust and a willingness to live together in one accord, which is simply not the case now. What we need are peace talks, but that is very difficult when we have the leadership of the Lambeth Conference saying "peace, peace," when there is no peace.
The blinking at reality continues and until the blinking stops and vision is fixed on recognizing that the Anglican crisis is due to the arrogant autonomous innovations inflicted by The Episcopal Church apparatus onto the rest of its own province and the Communion worldwide - with apparently no intention for discipline other than an ecclesiastical slap on the hand by the Archbishop of Canterbury - then a covenant is merely like Don Quixote tilting his windmills. Here is the in-depth analysis of the St. Andrews Revised Draft of the proposed Anglican Covenant:
Changes between the Nassau and St Andrews Drafts of An Anglican Covenant
Executive Summary
The St Andrews Draft is not a conservative revision of the Nassau Draft. Its changes are so significant theologically and practically that they completely recast both the grounds of common life together and the process by which the assault upon that common life by TEC and ACoC is to be addressed. The Nassau Draft is a much better document than its successor. The new document is severely flawed and should be repudiated.
A. Removals
1. The St Andrews Draft significantly reduces the attention paid to the authority of Scripture in the Nassau Draft.
2. The St Andrews Draft removes the language of obedience with reference to Scripture which appears at several points within the Nassau Draft.
3. The St Andrews Draft removes all reference to the history of salvation which provides an important foundation within the Nassau Draft.
4. The St Andrews Draft removes the theological anthropology in the Nassau Draft which provided an important foundation for understanding the crisis and the type of resolution that is needed.
5. The exploration of legitimate development in Christian understanding found in the Nassau Draft is likewise excised by the St Andrews Draft which provides no test for what is faithfulness and what is deviation.
6. There is no reference in the St Andrews Draft to the circumstances which provoked the need for a covenant despite the fact that an explanation of those events is an important part of the Nassau Draft. Once again a vital element of any proper response has been removed.
7. The Nassau Draft envisages that discipline is ‘required’ for departure from the apostolic witness while the St. Andrews Draft omits reference to any such requirement.
8 The St Andrews Draft removes the highly significant reference to the accountability of the ‘instruments of Communion’ in the Nassau draft.
9. The St Andrews Draft removes all reference to the legitimate concern to provide ‘adequate care and oversight for all those in north and south who find themselves alienated and abandoned’ which was an integral part of the pledge made in the Nassau Draft.
10. Similarly the St Andrews Draft ignores entirely the Nassau Draft’s insistence that new structures are necessary to support many parts of the Anglican family who have ‘remained faithful to Anglicanism as a valid expression of the church of the Apostles’.
B. Additions
11. While the ecclesiology in the Nassau Draft attempted to correlate the universal church and the local churches, the St Andrews Draft introduces the new notion of ‘autonomous in communion’ and constructs its proposed solutions on this notion.
12. The ACC is introduced into the St Andrews draft and its role significantly enhanced at the expense of that of the Primates..
A RESPONSE of the GAFCON Theological Resource Team to the St Andrews Draft Text of An Anglican Covenant
Introduction
The idea of a Covenant as a way out of the difficulties in which the Anglican Communion finds itself has been proposed in several quarters. The St Andrews Draft Text of An Anglican Covenant is one such attempt. The GAFCON Theological Resource Team reviewed the St Andrews Draft Text during pre-conference preparations in Jerusalem on 20th and 21st June 2008.
An Anglican Covenant was intended as a response to a crisis in the Anglican Communion which has been accurately described as ‘a rending of the Communion at the deepest level’. Determined departures from the teaching of Scripture on human sexuality by The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada are the immediate cause this situation. There appears no prospect of repentance from this repudiation of biblical authority on the part of either of these bodies (or from those elsewhere who have followed their lead in endorsing behaviour which Scripture explicitly forbids). Underlying these actions is a long history of marginalising, avoiding and at last rejecting the plain teaching of the Bible. In other words, the issue which we should expect this covenant to address is one of apostasy.
Many attempts have been made to address the breach of relationships caused by the setting aside of biblical teaching by some provinces, dioceses, and individual bishops, beginning at Kuala Lumpur in 1997, at the Lambeth Conference in 1998, and culminating recently, after consistent efforts in the intervening years, in the Primates’ Meeting in Dar es Salaam in 2007.
Sadly this new draft of An Anglican Covenant is both seriously limited and severely flawed. Whether or not the tool of covenant is the right way to approach the crisis within the Communion, this document is defective and its defects cannot be corrected by piecemeal amendment because they are fundamental. The St. Andrews Draft is theologically incoherent and its proposals unworkable. It has no prospect of success since it fails to address the problems which have created the crisis and the new realities which have ensued.
This document falls in effect into two parts. Sections 1 and 2 mention some matters of faith, but section 3 is in fact the critical section of the document, because this introduces the thought of Churches as being ‘autonomous-in-communion’. It is on this concept that the proposed resolution of Communion disputes rests.
Our response will confine itself to seven areas of theological concern and will briefly mention two other significant issues in its conclusion.
Serious Theological Flaws
1. A failure to address the issue
Any covenant document has to recognise fully the mischief it seeks to address. This document makes no mention of the crisis which has generated the call for such a remedy, which is a crisis of obedience to Scripture. Further, it fails to recognise that in the eyes of many the ‘instruments of Communion’ (3.1.4) are themselves part of the problem. This means that trying to use such failed instruments as arbiters of a future solution is problematic in the extreme. Put bluntly, this covenant will not allow the real issues to be addressed.
2. An illegitimate notion of autonomy
The understanding of the individual Churches of the Communion throughout this document is fatally ambiguous. The language of autonomy in communion is introduced in 3.1.2., but there has been no justification produced for this concept in the preceding sections. More seriously this language is unqualified and so fails to distinguish between matters on which Scripture is silent (and where there may be legitimate liberty and indeed diversity) and matters on which Scripture has spoken definitively (and where autonomy is therefore a euphemism for sin). Our obedience to Scripture and our responsibility to each other must significantly qualify all talk of ‘autonomy’ with reference to any congregation, diocese, province or, indeed, the Communion itself.
3. No biblical theology
The entire document, and particularly the statement concerning ‘the inheritance of faith’ in paragraph 1, is detached from the Scriptural narrative of salvation and redemption from sin, which Churches in the Communion have seen realised. The principal concerns of Scripture are ignored as the document concentrates on matters which are dependent and consequential upon those concerns. The unity of Christians flows out of the redeeming work of Christ and the incorporative ministry of the Spirit. Any attempt to generate or sustain such unity on our own terms and by our own institutional efforts without reference to this prior and determinative reality must be judged sub-biblical.
4. A faulty anthropology
An Anglican Covenant is primarily concerned with the doctrine of the church. However, any doctrine of the church presupposes a doctrine of humanity. The anthropology implicit in this document fails to capture the reality of any Christian’s life in this world as this is explained by Scripture. Christians are those who are redeemed by Christ but who remain sinful until God’s purposes are brought to their completion when Christ returns. This twofold reality has very significant implications for the life of the church. The reality of temptation and sin, a reality experienced by all no matter what their office in the church, needs to be taken seriously.
5. An absent eschatology
This document fails to adopt an appropriately biblical eschatological perspective. Its preoccupation with institutional processes is at the expense of a proper sense of our corporate and individual accountability to God on the Last Day for proper custodianship of the deposit of Faith. There is no reference to sin, judgement, ‘the coming wrath’ or to God’s provision of a remedy in the cross of Christ and the forgiveness of sins which attends faith and repentance.
6. Neglect of obedience
Throughout this document an attenuated view of biblical authority is presented. A critical element of the Christian response to God and his Word is missing. The Church is called not merely to treat God’s Word respectfully (1.2.4.), but to obey it. The absence of the language of obedience to the Word of God throughout the document is one of its most serious flaws.
7. An isolated and vacuous appeal to unity
Throughout An Anglican Covenant, biblical values are not treated in their mutual relationship. In particular the biblical injunctions to unity are in effect disconnected from the equally serious injunctions of Scripture to preserve the truth given to us. Paragraph 3.2 deals almost exclusively with perceived threats to the unity of the Communion rather than moral and doctrinal error, once again ignoring that our current disunity is the result of departures from the truth taught in Scripture in both of these areas.
Conclusion
Given the profound and fatal difficulties identified in the draft covenant, the legal framework of the appendix will likewise be open to overwhelming objection. The proposed legal framework in any event exhibits the same flaws as the parent document, notably in the way unity is abstracted from biblical faithfulness and no account is taken of the possibility that the instruments of Communion themselves might be the focus of objection. Two other objections must be mentioned. First, the document describes four instruments of Communion, which it proposes will provide solutions to disputes. It fails to recognise the disproportionate influence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who invites to the Lambeth Conference, chairs the ACC and calls the Primates’ Meeting. The problem of this undue influence is compounded by the lack of formal accountability on the part of the Archbishop and the prominence the document envisages for this Primate is frankly colonialist. Secondly, the prominence given to the Joint Standing Committee of the ACC and Primates raises problems in increasing further the ability of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the ACC to exercise disproportionate influence over the Primates, thereby tending in effect to silence dissentient primatial voices.
In the light of these considerations we find that the St Andrews Draft of An Anglican Covenant does not meet our expectations or hopes for restoring the broken sacrament of Communion.Friday, July 18, 2008
Tonight's Lambeth Film Fest Feature: What is your favorite color, er - colour?
Pull up a chair, pour yourself some chai, grab a bowl of popcorn and enjoy tonight's feature:
How 'bout those swallows?
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Bishop of Western Kansas clarifies his decision not to attend Lambeth
The Rt. Rev. James M. Adams, Jr., Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Western Kansas, has clarified his reasons not to attend the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury, England, BabyBlueOnline has learned.Bishop Adams made it clear in an e-mail that while he chose to attend GAFCON in Jerusalem out of his own pocket to celebrate his sixtieth birthday, he "would not spend any of the Church's money on a three week retreat in England, which even the ABC (Archbishop of Canterbury) said would not work to solve our problems, when I could not even afford priests for all my congregations."
"I would love a retreat in England," Bishop Adams wrote, "but not at the expense of my Diocese or the Church at all." Instead he personally paid out of his own pocket all his expenses to GAFCON.
Judge Bellows issues another ruling: sets new court date for August 11
Today Judge Randy Bellows issued a Letter of Opinion granting the Attorney General of the Common of Virginia's Renewed Motion to Intervene and defend the constitutionality of the Virginia Division Statute 57-9 in regard to the contracts clause of the United States Constitution.In addition he also issued a court order that the scope of discovery will continue as he made it clear that he doesnot want to put at risk the date of the October trial. He reiterated that the scope of the October trial will include focusing on the whether the votes taken by the CANA congregations were fairly taken and to verify the outcome of the majority of the congregations votes to affiliate with its choice of branch.
He will also rule following the October trial whether the contracts clause of the U.S. Constitution causes 57-9 to be unconstitutional, which is a major reason for the Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia to reintervene and defend the constitutionality of the historic Virginia statute.
From those rulings he will determine the fate of each congregation.
He also set an August 11 court date to hear oral arguments concerning three issues:
1. Whether the Diocese of Virginia and The Episcopal Church may assert at the October trial that the voting CANA congregations contracted away, waived, abandoned, or relinquished their right to file 57-9 petitions (BB NOTE: which makes me wonder why the Standstill Agreement did not consider that action hostile which this assertion surely does - and may also explain why the Standstill Agreement is still not up on the Diocese of Virginia's website). The judge says that the CANA Congregations maintain that this assertion is both untimely and unpled.
2. Whether the contracts clause protects only contractual rights that existed prior to the effective date of the predecessor statute to 57-9 (1867) which Judge Bellows explains is the position of the CANA Congregations.
3. Whether in determining the applicability of the contracts clause to particular congregations, the Court should consider only applicable deeds, which Judge Bellows also explains is the position of the CANA Congregations.
Judge Bellows says in his Order that these three items are pure questions of law and will be resolved prior to the October Trial. He set the date of August 11 in the Fairfax Circuit Court to hear those oral arguments from the Episcopal Church/Diocese of Virginia and the CANA Congregations.
So from Lambeth to Court do we go. Hi ho, hi ho, hi ho.
Anglican Mainstream: Inside the Big Top
Anglican Mainstream is on site in Canterbury and reporting daily. Here is their first report. Are the TEC Bishops planning to seat Gene Robinson after all? One thing we know is that there is nothing like a room full of bishops to see the gossip flow. Ah, but there is always a thin line between gossip and strategic planning.From here.
This is the first of regular daily blogs which will come live from our support team at Lambeth. You will get to know us as the days go by. We are sharing accommodations with two bishops and their wives who are reflecting with us on their experience of this global gathering.
We begin with the visuals and the physical impact of the site. The main plenaries are being held in a large blue ‘big top’ circus tent on the University of Kent campus. This is surrounded by a seven foot high wire fence whose entrances are manned by security guards. We are hoping to find out what security threat they are guarding against since Gene Robinson is not present at the plenaries.
The Welcome Meeting (for the Bishops and their Wives) took place on Wednesday evening and consisted mainly of logistical arrangements, introductions, and choir practice. Archbishop Williams’ introduction did not shrink from recognising the pain of missing brethren. Thursday morning began with Eucharist (without a homily) followed by Bible study based on the Gospel of John. The bishops then were taken by coach to Canterbury Cathedral for two addresses by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Our discussion with orthodox bishops thought that this was what he did best: leading a spiritual retreat at which people could have listened to him for hours.
Our bishops’ question was whether this would lead to any substantial result. It is already rumoured that TEC bishops are planning a popular move among the indaba groups to call for Gene Robinson to be seated as a full member of the conference.
Two absentees were public news today, Bishop John David Schofield was technically disinvited though the language used in relation to this skates over this fact. Bishop Ed Salmon formerly of South Carolina who had made all his bookings and reservations prior to the second election of Bishop Mark Lawrence heard that he was no longer invited well after he had made non-refundable reservations. He is attending as press.
Moreover, a bishop from Canada has said freely that once Lambeth is over the Canadian church will be moving forward apace with same-sex blessings etc. This gives substance to the observation that there is denial in what looks to be a potentially schizophrenic conference. Everyone knows that the North American lobbies are determined to have their agenda affirmed. However, all the processes of the conference in plenary addresses and small discussion groups mean that there is no place for the whole conference to hear itself think and address this elephant in the room.
The bishops are clearly valuing the focus on worship, Bible study and spiritual input in a historic cathedral setting. This is obviously a very good place to start. But where is it all going?
Cherie Wetzel Reports: More Invitations Withdrawn - or Not?
UPDATE: Was Bishop Schofield's invite withdrawn? Archbishop Venables says nope. In fact, he says emphatically nope. From here:In addition, I have been in conversation with Archbishop Rowan. Over the weekend I received the following message from him: "I understand that Bishop John-David Schofield has been accepted as a full member of the episcopal fellowship of the Province of the Southern Cone within the Anglican Communion and as such cannot be regarded as having withdrawn from the Anglican Communion. However, it is acknowledged that his exact status (especially given the complications surrounding the congregations associated with him) remains unclear on the basis of the general norms of Anglican Canon Law, and this constitutes one of the issues on which we hope for assistance from the Windsor Continuation Group. Bishop Schofield has elected to decline the invitation to the Lambeth Conference issued to him last year although that decision does not signal any withdrawal from the Communion. I hope there may be further careful reflection to clarify the terms on which he will exercise his ministry."
This statement from the Archbishop of Canterbury is clear, even though we are in somewhat new territory; you remain within the Anglican Communion. Given the rigors of international travel and the work that there is to do in the Diocese, I am in agreement with Bishop John-David's decision not to attend the Lambeth Conference. I am also aware of statements by Bishop Jerry Lamb in which he makes statements and demands that miss the mark of Christian leadership and fall short of what many consider propriety. I would encourage the clergy and lay members of the diocese to ignore this. We are glad to have you as full members of the Southern Cone. As you can see, you are well regarded as members of the Anglican Communion. May God richly bless you!
As we write in the comments, watching the Lambeth Conference appears to be like watching a cross between the Politburo and the Democratic National Convention.
Though noting that Bishop Schofield's invite was not withdrawn, here's Cherie's report from the ground from here. She gives a great overview of what it feels like to be there.
We made our way to the train to Canterbury, sinking into the seat and watching the English countryside roll past the windows. For you farm buffs, the first cutting of hay is done and the timothy is knee high and lustrous green. Rivers and ponds are full. Meadows were filled of sheep and cattle. The landscape is verdant from rain, something we lack in Texas. The world outside the train’s windows looked deceptively peaceful and serene.
The dorm at Canterbury Christ Church University is pretty modern, very secure and loaded with Techie delights including wi-fi Internet access and multiple electrical plugs at each of the two desks. It is even insuite, which we did not expect.
Canterbury is just like the pictures in the book. The Cathedral tower dominates the landscape. The Cathedral itself is the walled attraction of the city. The streets are cobbled, narrow and winding. This is rolling country, with the village in the valley and the University of Kent, where the Lambeth Conference is actually held, on the top of the hill. From our window, you can see the buildings at the University and the flags on the “big top,” a giant blue tent erected to hold the conference. More about that in a minute.
We are working with Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream, our English counterpart and the Rev. Ed van Blauwen, Forward in Faith, NA, Diocese of Quincy. Last night was a catch-up for like-minded Anglicans, here to chart this epic conference at this particular time in the Communion. We talked late into the evening about what we hoped for in this event and tried to grasp some of the details for our work here. We planned for receptions and information sessions for bishops we know and some we have not met yet. It was a very hopeful, prayerful evening.
Our planning for these events may look amateurish when compared to the elaborate plans and opportunities for free food and discussion provided by Integrity, Claim the Blessing and the Lesbian/Gay Christian Movement. These folks are here in full force, and are running some type of informational event every day. Poster boy Gene Robinson is also here. Bishop Tom Ely of Vermont is having two sessions where he discusses the polity of the Episcopal Church and explains to everyone how Robinson was duly elected (read, and deserves to be seated at this conference.) These polity sessions are followed by “meet Gene” sessions. These events, labeled “fringe events” are all held after 8:00 PM in different rooms around the University. We will watch them and report. Clearly, the American bishops will come in droves; but no one can presume how the rest of the Communion will respond.
Some would say there was little reason for optimism. We learned yesterday that The Rt. Rev. John-David Schofield’s invitation was withdrawn last week, as were the invitations of two bishops from Recife, Brazil. All three are now under the Most Rev. Greg Venables of the Southern Cone. It seems that they, like the “irregularly consecrated bishops of CANA and the AMiA” in the states, will not be recognized. This leaves little doubt about the future for other clergy and bishops who leave TEC and hope to remain part of the Communion. It looks like any intervention into another Province will be denied acceptance, be they priests, parishes or dioceses transferring to a foreign bishop. Those whose only desire was to remain Anglican within the Communion now stand outside those vast boundaries.
This decision alone may be enough to force schism.
For months, the question of Schofield’s invitation has floated through the blogs. Presiding Bishop Jefferts Schori pressed for the withdrawal of this invitation shortly after the House of Bishops deposed Bishop Schofield last March. It was not withdrawn. We may never know who exerted the leverage to finally dislodge this bishop; he is not here.
This morning, the Rt. Rev. Ed Salmon, newly retired bishop of South Carolina, arrived and moved in with us here at Christ Church University. He will be a source of strength and encouragement for all.
Last night’s opening session for the bishops and their spouses was, according to several bishops we spoke with, “ boring and primarily a choir practice.” The one interesting piece from their description was Archbishop Williams’ introduction, which included a statement of regret for those who decided not to come. He said that he regretted that so many decided they would not come. To my knowledge, this is his first statement of regret on this issue. I hope is it not his last. The absence of so many African bishops makes this conference Western-dominated and way out of balance.
The music team taught the music for worship and there was a long discussion of house keeping rules and regulations. One long announcement was about the press, gathering here in record numbers. Those with a red neckbands on their ID are “house press.” They are regularly employed by the Anglican Communion News Service or the Episcopal News Service (TEC). They will conduct the interviews and release the official news reports of this meeting. All the rest of the press – some 140 of us – have blue ID bands and the bishops have been told they do not need to speak with us.
There is a big blue tent on the grounds of the University for the joint sessions with bishops and spouses. None of the buildings has the capacity for 1300 people. The tent, reminiscent of a circus tent, is surrounded by a tall chain-link fence and posted with security guards. Access to this area is highly restricted. Is this is the Church of the future?
It all began officially today. Starting this morning, the registered bishops, who total just under 650, began a 3 day retreat led by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Today, Dr. Williams is teaching on John 1: 1-18. Several hours of the retreat are for silence, reflection and prayer. Dinner will be promptly served at 7:00 PM, which makes each day just over 12 hours long. Morning prayer begins every morning at 6:30 AM, with little or no free time until after dinner. Today, the bishops boarded busses for transport to Canterbury Cathedral and every door, gate and alley to that place was sealed by security guards. No photo op – the busses drove behind the walls before any bishops descended the steps.
So, there is a great deal of security for those who have come. They can speak with each other in privacy as Bishops old and new from around the Communion are gathered once again in Canterbury. The ancient seat of authority for all of Anglicanism is filled with bishops – some elected; some appointed. Those given the special responsibility to lead and guide the faithful of this church have assembled. It has begun!
Cherie Wetzel is with Anglicans United & Latimer Press based in Dallas, TX.Learning Christ together ...
The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams opened the Lambeth Conference to the sounds of South African Alleluias and prayers for the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He spoke to the gathering of Anglican Bishops from around the world addressing the first plenary session of the Lambeth Conference yesterday (July 16) He stressed that the Conference had a very strong emphasis on drawing together round the Bible and had been designed as a place “in which every voice can be heard and in which we build Christian relationship”.He said that his own prayer and hope for the Conference “is not that after two weeks we will find a solution to all our problems but we shall as I have written more than once in some sense find the trust in God and one another that will give us the energy to change in the way God wants us to change. That is the most important thing we can pray for, the energy to change as God wants us to change individually and as a Communion.”
Some Bishops have chosen to stay away although only one Province (Uganda) has no Bishops present. Dr Williams acknowledged this fact, “I think it’s important I should say that it’s a great grief that many of our brothers and sisters in the Communion have not felt able to be with us for these weeks, a grief because we need their voice and they need ours in learning Christ together.”
Dr Williams said that – as he had written to many people in recent months – “I respect and accept the decisions that have been made but together we need in prayer to acknowledge the wound that that makes in our fellowship” and, “ that we still have to mend relations that have been hurt. I hope that in these weeks we shall daily be remembering those who are not with us upholding them in our prayers, in our respect and love.”
He continued: “I don’t imagine that simply building relationships solves our problems but the nature of our calling as Christians is such that we dare not, and I say very strongly, dare not pretend that we can meet and discuss without attention to this quality of relation with each other even if we disagree or find ourselves going in different directions. The Lord of the Church commands that we must love one another in the process and there is no alternative to that. I trust that you are here in that confidence, in that willingness to love one another.”
The Archbishop added that this sounded “so simple” but it had to be said “because we know as we meet that we are also a wounded body.” He added there were no magic words to heal those wounds “but as we seek to meet Jesus Christ in each other we hope that the wounds that are still open will in some sense also be open to receive the work of God the Holy Spirit in our work.”
Dr Williams concluded his address by encouraging the bishops who are now in retreat until Sunday morning “to be there and let God come to you”.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Spinning the Lambeth Tunes while preparing for the Lambeth Conference
Just click here.
For all who have given so far - there are just no words to express how thankful I am for all of you and for the wide variety of folks who have donated! We'll try to do the best we can to report what we see and learn on the ground with onsite commentary, special podcasts (we have the podcast all ready up in the iTunes Store and will post the link shortly), videocasts, with lots of photos and interviews while still spinning the Lambeth Tunes.
Thanks for making this Cafe come alive! A Cafe is far more than the one who bakes the pies or serves the chai. And remember, when things get tough don't forget that the David Blue Memorial Pinball Machine is still free.
With that in mind, we offer a brief break from the wailing and gnashing of teeth to spin this evening's Lambeth Tune ... but let us all be ready for when the lion wakes up.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Rowan Williams writes a letter ...
Rowan Williams has taken the credit for writing a letter to "Muslim brothers and sisters everywhere" which is very nice, but very troubling. It's all here.At first it seems to be the usual. God is love, love is God. What's all the fuss?
In fact, as long as we bring our own definitions and assumptions into the document, there's much to like. God is love and love makes the world go round, all you need is love, what the world needs now is love sweet love, love is many splendored thing, love will keep us together, love is all you need, love means never having to say your sorry. But what is Agape Love? Isn't it Sydney Carton going to the gallows? That's not exactly good news unless you realize that it's not liberation we're after (and that's the word Rowan uses) but redemption. They are not the same thing.
There is an almost sophomoric quality to his assumptions, his ideal for religious plurality, many of them left unsaid. It's one thing to say Presbyterians and Lutherans should get along, let alone Protestants and Catholics. But what of the many political varieties of Islam in Great Britain? One size does not fit all, even when we wish it were so. Love means facing the truth even when it hurts - and sometimes it really hurts, so much so that we are asked to pick up our own cross and follow Jesus (however it is that He fits into the Trinity, with or without his personhood).
Rowan appears to make some some rather grand assumptions, especially about the Trinity. In his brave attempt to smooth things over, he has to smooth over the difficult bits about Jesus character (John 14:6 for example). And yes, Jesus has character, He is a person. He sits at the right-hand of the Father, except when He stood up for Stephen as he was martyred. Whatever that means. Jesus is not just a floating scarf, waffling through the air, full of air but not much substance.
Rowan's appeal to "God is Love" as an antidote blinks at the reality of the nature of 21st century Islam - he seems to be more in the mood to appease (which isn't really love but fear) then see his neighbor through the cross of Christ and allow that love to break his heart. Love strengthens us to share the Good News of Christ, the Holy Spirit gives us discernment in how and when. Scripture is clear. Pluralism is a ruse. We don't have rival football teams for nothing - the nature of the heart of man is tragically wicked and in desperate need of redemption. If a religion has no redeemer, there will be no change, no hope, only despair. And despair can produce unfortunate consequences. It is not loving to turn our heads away. The change will come in our culture because the Church is alive and will express our love for Jesus by winsomely extending the warm hand of fellowship to our neighbor without prejudice, not by preaching "I'm Okay, You're Okay, and Allah is Okay too."
The letter is almost filled with the sort of idealistic musings we used to share late nights around around the table in college, even admitting that some times God just gets pissed off and not without reason. Otherwise, what is justice? At the heart of justice is a zeal for righteousness. Rowan apologizes for a lot of things, but never once did he apologize for the cultural debauchery of Western modernity.
Rowan seems to be on the defensive, explaining that while the Muslims might be wrong about the Trinity, they are not as wrong as they thought they were and oh, by the way, it doesn't really matter because we should all just love each other anyway. Let's just not mention the part about Jesus being the Son of God and the son of Mary, implying that the whole bit about his being born to a Virgin was metaphoric (which is what I think Rowan is implying, to be quite honest), not one of history, not that Mary became pregnant supernaturally, not that God was His Father - literally (Rowan does not make that case - did you notice? In fact, he seems to go out of his way to dispute such a thing - the conception is a metaphor). He doesn't explain the nature of God as three persons, in fact, he seems to refute it (remember, "God in three person, blessed Trinity" that we sing in the hymn Holy, Holy, Holy found in the Hymnal? Oops) - that we can have a deeply personal relationship with God (doesn't mention it), that He speaks to us, that we obey Him, that we repent, that our lives are changed, that we were created to be in a personal relationship with God and this is made possible not directly one on one to God, but through the mediation of His Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:6 again) in the transforming power of the Holy Spirit.
Yes, there is much that appears familiar - but still, at the heart of it are these assumptions that are just plain off the rails and cause alarm, coming as it is from someone who is supposed to be the Archbishop of Canterbury. He's trying so hard to be accommodating, to be helpful, to point out how much we all have in common. I do think he's a very nice person - he seems genuinely sincere. But it's so not true. Page after page of "why can't we belong since we all want to love" and missing the point that we really don't have that assumption - it's just plain wishful thinking. At the heart of humankind is something far more broken and the nature of the threat in Great Britain is akin to how seriously religious and political leaders want to face that threat. Is it real or is it memorex? Ironically, in a way, he reminds me of the chief of the Arapaho, Little Raven, who trusted the American government only to find himself ambushed and betrayed at the Sand Creek Massacre. Rowan may know theology, but he doesn't seem to know either his history or human nature. He sounds like he's back in the Summer of Love, San Francisco, circa 1967. And we know what happened soon after.
While he alludes to there being some sort of issue that Jesus came and God got the credit, it doesn't seem to be anything like Redemption or Transformation or even the work Salvation. It seems more like we have this Cosmic God who passively loves everybody but not personally, but cosmically. Pass the Allen Ginsburg incense burner.
God may love us, but He can't be in direct relationship with us because we are spiritually corrupt. It was His action plan to send His Son into the world to be our Savior and our Redeemer and reconcile us to God. God is in relationship with us through Jesus Christ and Him Alone. No one else can come to the Father except through Him. Either we believe it or we don't. This is the crossroads, the crux, the heart of the Gospel. In the end, as Dylan says, we all gotta serve somebody. Who will it be?
Jesus is the Mediator. There is no other. Isn't Rowan Williams the guy who should be making the case for a robust Christianity? He seems content to leave these poor people lost in the name of Plurality, as though sharing the Gospel of Jesus Christ is somehow rude. The case for Christianity can be made with passion and it can be made lovingly and it can be made gently and compassionately and with great kindness. It is His kindness that leads us to repentance and it's not easy to show kindness, not only to our adversaries, but to our own friends. Look at Billy Graham - he never flinched from the hard bits, but he always demonstrated his deeply abiding convictions with love and grace. He even went to the Soviet Union when everyone else was blowing the gasket - but he didn't mince words, he told them the truth. And it took of hold them.
Peace, peace, they are just words when they are absent the transformation power of the Gospel. There is no peace. Being polite is not peace. It's just putting people on hold.
What changes everything is when our hearts are radically transformed and reformed when we invite Jesus Christ, our Lord and our Redeemer, into our life. Our focus is on Jesus, not on some Hippie God Lava Lamp Thingy. For all the lofty theological language that dares confrontation, it still comes across as some sort of Haight Ashbury Love In, this new Age of Aquarius. The fact remains - Islam and Christianity are just two completely different religions, they are two completely different world views, they have different intentions, different goals - secular Muslims may be one thing, especially those that want to assimilate into British culture - but the majority of what Britain is facing is not secular Muslims assimilating into the culture, oh no it is not.
In order to calm the Islamic cultural fears about us, Rowan has to remake the Trinity and Jesus into some sort of emasculated spiritualism, harmlessly parading about, like the New Hampshire bishop on a press junket. But if Rowan really wants to demonstrated a Love-In, just have everyone over for supper at the palace, pour a few bottles of wine and tell silly stories about the kids. Loosen up. Get real. Tell us the truth.
This letter is naive in that it misses the crucial point on the crux of Christianity - who is Jesus and why did He die and what does that have to do with the rest of us? It's like he spends 12 pages talking about Starbucks but never offers anyone a cup of coffee.
Love is the aroma, but the Gospel is a cup filled to the brim.
God is the great I AM. His Covenant People are the Jews and we are His people out of the New Covenant - we have been grafted in. We are saved and the door is open to all for this great news, our Great Commission. There is no way this is compatible with Islam and everyone knows it - that's why the terror is exasperated, these are two separate world views. If Rowan would get on the airplane instead of pleading green and staying home and fly to Nigeria and Uganda he'd see for himself that love does not mean appeasement, but standing firm in the Christian faith and praying that others may come to know Jesus through our witness.
Christ's redeeming love extends to all and His life fills us when we accept Him as Lord. This is no time for a groovy Lava Lamp. This is no time to advocate pluralism. And the Trinity is God in three persons, persons that are distinct and in relationship with one another, unified in the mystery of the Godhead, Three in One. Rowan's Trinity comes across as three psychedelic colored scarves just flapping in the breeze, a breeze that builds into the winds of war.
This is the time to take our standard and plant it firmly in the ground of scripture, a ground made holy by the blood of Christ and of the martyrs, and say to all, here I stand by the grace of God, and I, I shall not be moved. In the meantime, would you like a cup of coffee?
Read Rowan Williams' entire letter here.
Monday, July 14, 2008
The Anglicans at Lambeth: What's at Stake
From First Things by Jordan Hylden:Nearly six hundred purple-shirted Anglican bishops will gather this week in England for the Lambeth Conference, the decennial meeting of all the bishops in the global Anglican Communion. Of course, there would have been well over eight hundred, but for the fact that the bishops of five national Anglican provinces—about a quarter of Anglican bishops overall—decided to stay home.
That’s a sadness, for the average Anglican today (as Gregory Cameron has pointed out), is a black woman in Africa, under the age of thirty, who supports three children on a salary of two dollars a day and finds the story of her life written in the pages of the Old Testament. The average Anglican represented at Lambeth is more likely a white man from New Jersey with a three-car garage who supposes that the world in which he lives is described quite well by the pages of the New York Times.
Above all else, the Lambeth bishops must show themselves to be an effective instrument in service of the faith and unity of the Anglican Communion. Essentially, the bishops must give a clear articulation of their common mind on the issues that presently threaten the Anglican world with schism, and they must present a viable and biblically faithful way forward that can be pursued by the majority of Anglicans with vigor and conviction.
While doing so, they must reassure those concerned about over-centralization that the need for unity in fundamentals is by no means a threat to the long-standing Anglican tradition of freedom in matters accessory to the creedal faith. If this is done, a great victory will be won for the Christian witness and catholic substance of Anglicanism. If it is not, the downward spiral of Anglicanism into heresy and fragmentation will likely continue.
Unfortunately, there are several factors in play that will make the Lambeth bishops’ task very difficult. Most fundamentally, the bishops will have to confront a theology, held by many of their own members, which places little value on doctrinal unity and scriptural authority and instead exalts near-unbounded freedom and diversity in matters of faith and ethics. Liberal Anglican modernists, many of them from North America, believe that doctrinal latitude is central to what it means to be Anglican. They argue that the 2003 consecration to the episcopate of Gene Robinson, an actively gay man, was fully in keeping with Anglican tradition, even though the 1998 Lambeth conference had held homosexual practice to be incompatible with scriptural norms. Several American and Canadian bishops continue to publicly bless same-sex unions, in defiance of the repeated requests of the international organs of Anglicanism and the canons of their own churches.
This approach to Church teaching has repeatedly been criticized as leading to a loss of doctrinal integrity and coherence, perhaps most trenchantly in Stephen Sykes’ book, The Integrity of Anglicanism, written for the occasion of Lambeth 1978. Historically speaking, Sykes argued that Anglicanism has indeed committed itself to a good deal of doctrinal content—to the Scriptures as the rule and ultimate standard of the faith, the catholic creeds, the historic episcopate, and the dominical sacraments. But the inroads made by theological modernism have made it unclear that Anglicans truly hold to these fundamental points. As Rowan Williams recently put it, the crisis is such that Anglicans are no longer sure that they can recognize each others’ ministries, or even that they are speaking the same language of faith.
If the bishops of Lambeth 2008 are unable to clearly state that such incoherence cannot be the basis of Anglicanism, then the communion’s devolution will only continue. Unfortunately, the retrenchment and expansion of this sort of doctrinal free-for-all is precisely what many liberal bishops (particularly those from North America) hope to see. It will be difficult for orthodox bishops to resist them, but absolutely crucial for the success of the conference.
Making the task more difficult will be the sheer number of liberals present. It is no small thing that a quarter of all Anglican bishops have absented themselves from the conference. The absent Global South bishops represent nearly 40 million Anglicans, out of a total of 77 million worldwide. Of the 37 million that will be represented at Lambeth, 26 million are numbered as baptized members of the Church of England, only one million of whom are regular worshipers. American bishops alone will comprise nearly 25 percent of Lambeth attendance—this notwithstanding the fact that the Episcopal Church’s actions are the cause of the present controversies, and even though its membership of 2.2 million comprises less than 3 percent of the communion’s overall total. In short, the present makeup of the conference is seriously unrepresentative of global Anglicanism. Those bishops representing the orthodox mainstream of the communion will have an uphill battle to ensure that they are not made to seem like the Anglican minority voice, which they most manifestly are not.
Perhaps making their task yet more challenging is the structure of the conference itself. Unlike the previous thirteen meetings, this year’s Lambeth conference will not feature large sessions ordered toward producing resolutions. It will instead consist of small discussion groups (called indaba, a Zulu term for “gathering”) aimed toward the eventual production of a communal “Reflections” document.
Some have been skeptical of the intent and effect of the new design. There may well be sound reasons for the change; it can be difficult for all voices to be heard in enormous parliamentary sessions. But some are concerned that the new design will actually have the effect of preventing any outcomes such as the ones at the 1998 meeting, where the numerical strength of Global South bishops led to the passage of resolutions that were unpalatable to Northern liberals.
By dividing the bishops into small groups, and by emphasizing the discussion of issues ordered toward producing reflections, the conference may mute or disperse the voice of the majority on any given issue. Anglicans have long debated the normative status of Lambeth’s resolutions, and the theological import of reflections produced by indaba groups will be of even more peculiar status.
If the orthodox bishops at Lambeth are to be successful, they must find a way past several obstacles to produce a clear and forceful statement of where Anglicans stand and where to go from here. There will be opportunities to discuss pressing issues—such as human sexuality, women’s ordination, the role of the episcopate in the church, and the proposed Anglican Covenant—and the orthodox bishops must take full advantage of them. Liberal bishops hope that Lambeth will produce nothing of substance, and the boycotting conservative bishops fear they are right. The orthodox bishops who decided to attend this year’s meeting must prove both sides wrong.
Two weeks ago, many conservative Anglicans met at GAFCON to produce their own statement of doctrinal foundations and to begin their own way forward. It is not difficult to see why many faithful Anglicans felt that such a move was needed. But it should be no less difficult to see why the GAFCON path will only lead to further schism. In essence, if it is followed as an alternative to the existing structures of Anglicanism, it amounts to the creation of a new evangelical church in the Anglican tradition. Many orthodox Anglicans will not in good conscience be able to join them, and where there is one split, more are sure to follow.
The orthodox Lambeth bishops have long been proposing their own way forward. Their much-discussed Anglican Covenant is intended to both articulate the fundamental articles of Anglican faith and to create an ongoing process by which the Anglican churches can explore new doctrinal paths within the bounds of ordered communal discernment. The recently unveiled Communion Partners plan is intended to put flesh on the Covenant proposal by uniting orthodox American dioceses and parishes together, and with supportive primates overseas, in a common commitment to work for reform within the existing structures of Anglicanism. If the orthodox Lambeth bishops hope to convince their GAFCON fellows that there is indeed a way forward that does not involve massive schism, they must demonstrate that they do in fact have a viable alternative in the Anglican Covenant and the Communion Partners plan, and that they intend to pursue it with vigor.
In the end, the Lambeth bishops must show the world a way forward for the Anglican Communion that rejects the easy compromise of doctrinal and ecclesial muddle while eschewing the route of quick separation from all but a narrow band of the like-minded. They need to demonstrate to the Church and the world that Anglicans are truly committed both to the gospel revealed by God in Jesus Christ and to walking together in charity and peace. Anglicans around the world will be praying for their bishops these next two weeks. The bishops know well how much they need it.
Read the whole thing here.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
Sunday Afternoon in Old Town Alexandria
Outside of watching a BBC video of the predictable heckler at the latest stop on the Gene Press Tour this morning (isn't that the point of such a tour - to generate controversy and stop the presses?), it's been a rather quiet afternoon, lunch at Union Street with a friend from out of town, and a casual walk up King Street here in Old Town, Alexandria. One can get the feeling that it's the calm before the storm.LATER: Sure enough, the skies are growing very dark and we have to run to our car before the storm breaks. On that note, here's a Sunday Afternoon tune of a reunion of the Byrds and a special surprise guest:
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The Essence of Indaba
Just in time for Lambeth, we have a very special BabyBluePodcast featuring an interpretive reading of the letter from the Secretary General of the Anglican Communion to the bishops officially attending the Lambeth Conference in Canterbury .
Entitled The Essence of Indaba, the podcast is available for easy download from iTunes so all may have it handy in the iPods and laptops in case there's a need to review and reflect on the meaning of The Essence of Indaba or perhaps just to catch some extra shut-eye.
Beware! This is an unabridged version, so it may take several days, weeks, months - or even years - to hear the complete interpretive reading since even we keep falling asleep each time we attempt to play it and find, sadly, that we must start all over again. We do hope we may be able to finish it before we leave for Canterbury later this month.Please note the incidental offering of a public service. If anyone is having trouble falling asleep,
be it on the plane, the train, at home, or during the conference itself, we wholeheartedly recommend this podcast as an effective remedy. Teddy Bears and pillows are unfortunately not included, however we recommend here for the perfect pillow and here for the perfect Teddy.The original text of the letter is located here.
You can click on the player above or go to iTunes and download it to your iPod or computer by clicking on the link located in the Cafe's links column to your right. The iTunes Podcast is called BabyBlueOnline. You can also click here or here.NOTE: To download the latest version of QuickTime, click here. Also, Firefox or Safari work best. MS Internet Explorer belongs in the Smithsonian next to the TRS80, so download Firefox instead. And please, be cautious with all emissions.
Pre-Lambeth SongFest: Sound of Silence
Paul Simon and Bob Dylan, 1999. See, Bob can indeed sing in a traditional style - if he wants to! Everything else he does, he does on purpose, even singing in a traditional style - or more likely, not. Like Picasso, sometimes he'd rather not paint his masterpieces as anything but the least expected. But this is positively one of the most haunting rendition of this classic song. We're adding it to our special "Lambeth" playlist on the Official BabyBlue iPod. Might come in handy when we're hanging about the gates at Canterbury.
Farewell, Tony Snow (1955-2008)
"When I was your age, I had long hair, a beard and thought of myself as a socialist. You are going to pinball all over the place, from experience to experience, job to job. And I want you to remember that you’ve got company. And that if you engage them with heart and mind, with faith and energy, you are going to find yourself on a cresting wave. It’ll carry you forward and it’ll push you under water from time to time. And some day in the dim and distant future, when you’re looking back at it, you’re not going to think about your car or your career or your gold watch. You’ll think about a chewed-up teddy bear you had as a baby or maybe your child’s smile on a special Christmas morning. The only things that are sure to endure are the artifacts of love. So go out and build as many as you can."Tony Snow (1955-2008)
From his Commencement Address
The Catholic University, Washington, D.C.
May 12, 2007
Read the whole thing here. Tip of the Tinfoil: RWB.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Pre-Lambeth Countown: 50 Top Anglicans
SATURDAY UPDATE: Well, they have lists 1-20 now up here and here. And let's just say that at least one major influential Anglican didn't even make the list, alas! Perhaps what the Telegraph did was merely count the "Google-hits" for each individual to generate their lists and many of the truly influential will not generate "Google hits" (one can only imagine the witty retort now). However, in the real world it's not the Google hits that matter, as anyone on Capitol Hill - or K Street or Foggy Bottom - will tell you. Fame is not the same as influence. And for commentary on that, click here.FRIDAY UPDATE: The Telegraph now has added 21-30 - which again tells us more about them then perhaps it does the reality on the ground. But it is entertaining. We wonder if one in particular has picked up a dictionary yet. Obvious ones still haven't made the list - and we are wondering if one of the most influential Anglicans insiders will even make the list. Stay tuned.
The London Telegraph has devised their own "influential" Anglicans list (which frankly tells us more about what they think is going on rather than what actually is, but never mind). It's an interesting list for not only who is listed and where (which so far we've found rather amusing) but for who is not listed - at least not yet. So far the Telegraph has released their bottom 20 - you can see 31-40 here and 41-50 here.
So who's left to go - and who do you think will be in the Top 10? We see there's some serious debating going on over at the table near the David Blue Memorial Pinball Machine. Another round of chais and butterbeer for all.
