What is the future of the #Anglican Communion?

The Bishop of Egypt and Presiding Bishop of the Middle-East, Mouneer Anis, spoke on the the future of the Anglican Communion is this address at the 50th Anniversary of the Toronto Anglican Congress.  
From here:

Is the Anglican Communion a communion?

Is it realistic now, is it realistic to call the Anglican Communion a communion? Is this realistic? It is a question that we need to ask, are we still a communion?

Many people spoke about this and used this term ‘the fabric of the Anglican Communion is torn to its deepest level.’ There was a lot of worrying about this before the consecration of Gene Robinson and there were signs even before this. And we are torn as a communion. We are torn as a family.

Now, again because of my medical background, I would say what are the signs and symptoms of this torn fabric of our Anglican Communion? 

Signs and Symptoms

There are already provinces which have broken communion with other provinces.

• Impaired Communion: There are other provinces that didn’t break communion; however they don’t have relations at all with others in the communion. So that is impaired communion. 
• Broken Communion: There is broken Eucharistic communion when we gather as the Primates Meeting and a group of Primates cannot conscientiously receive communion – the bread and wine with their colleagues – so the broken Eucharistic communion. 
• Complete Separation: And complete separation from the Anglican Communion we have some movements that separated itself completely from the Anglican Communion; and also new movements that work independently, so it walks its way and takes its action regardless of what is happening in the rest of the Anglican Communion. 

The fabric is torn

And as a sign of this also, of the torn fabric of the Communion, our communion partners - the Catholics, the Oriental Orthodox, the Greek Orthodox - they said we are going to stop and freeze the ecumenical dialogue until the Anglicans sort out their own problems.

As a sign and symptom, 250 bishops did not attend the Lambeth Conference in 2008. 15 Primates did not attend the Primates Meeting in 2011 in Dublin. One bishop and 3 Primates, all orthodox, resigned from the Anglican Communion Standing Committee - this is the standing committee which works for the future of the whole Communion - and the orthodox voice was completely disregarded.

So what happened? Why did this happen? Is it all about sexuality? That’s an important question. People think that the consecration of Gene Robinson led to the crisis – that’s true – but actually it was the consecration of Gene Robinson that revealed the weakness that revealed the difficulties that were hidden within the Communion. The crisis tore the fabric of the Communion and revealed the real issues behind this.

What are the real issues?
The real issues are the interpretation and the authority of the Scriptures. We have major differences in the interpretation of this picture, and we have differences even in the Doctrine of the Trinity. And this started back in the [Fifties]. The person and the work and the resurrection of Jesus Christ – some people even doubt it - some people really don’t believe in it in these things.

So the diversity within the Anglican Communion started to widen and widen to the degree that one can call it an unlimited diversity; not a limited diversity; not a diversity in the non-essentials, has started to encroach the essentials of faith of the Anglican Communion.

The real issues are: 

• The acknowledgement of Jesus as divine, and the one and only means of salvation; 
• The doctrine of sin; 
• The forgiveness; reconciliation; 
• Transformation by the Holy Spirit through Christ. 

There are big differences in these issues. The sanctity of marriage and teaching about morality that is rooted in the Bible – all these are the much deeper issues that are at stake within the Anglican Communion.

The causes of failure to deal with the crisis. We face the crisis and as a family facing any crisis we should have the ability and the mechanism, and the ability, and the ways to sort out this problem and deal with the crisis.

But why are we not capable of doing it up until now?

Why we fail: The Instruments of Unity

The failure I would say is a failure of the instruments of unity, or the instruments of Communion as some people say; either because of the unwillingness to fulfill its role or because they became dysfunctional and ineffective. I would like to take one instrument of unity, one after another:

Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby

• The first one, the Archbishop of Canterbury: ‘I have no power’ – many Archbishops of Canterbury say this, ‘I have no power’ – which is true. The Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t have power, because he is Primus Inter Pares, so all the archbishops who are in the Anglican Communion are equal and each province has autonomy. So he has no power to say to any province: ‘do this’ or ‘not to do this.’ This is true, but Archbishops of Canterbury, they have influence, much greater influence, but it depends if they want to use it, or not use it. ‘I have no power,’ beginning with the desire to hold everyone together.

I have survived three Archbishops now. Every one wants to start with holding everyone together, and at the end, when they know that this is an impossible task, they don’t want to do anything. So at the beginning they want to hold everyone, and at the end they give up – or give in, completely!

Anglican Primates Meeting 2005

• The Primates Meetings recommendations were not followed through. The Primates Meetings of 2005, 2007 and 2009 were not followed through regarding sorting out the crisis of the Communion. The Primates meet, they have an ‘enhanced responsibility’ according to the Resolutions of the Lambeth Conference 1988 and 1998. 

However, every decision and every recommendation they took was not followed through. And I remember that one of the strongest resolutions that every Primate agreed upon was in Dar-es-Salaam, because the Archbishop of Canterbury went from one Primate to another asking: ‘do you agree’, do you agree,’ ‘do you agree,’ and everyone said ‘we agree.’ 

And the recommendations of this Dar-es-Salaam meeting were never followed through.

Lambeth Conference 2008

• The Lambeth Conference.  In this last Lambeth Conference of 2008, they had this great invention of Indaba. And Indaba is, a word that is used in South Africa, to sit and listen and sort out a problem, not just to listen. But they took the first part which is listening only and put aside the other part of the Indaba process which is making a decision and working on achieving the solution. So the Indaba – I was in the preparation with Archbishop Ian Ernest, the preparation for Lambeth 2008, and as soon as we heard about the Indaba process, we felt that this is a divide and rule process. Lambeth 2008 has no resolutions, intentionally; that we would not make any resolutions. And someone asked what will we call Lambeth 2008? And a great figure in Lambeth 2008, he said this: ‘operation succeeded and patient died.’ 

Anglican Consultative Council 2009

• The Anglican Consultative Council is now like a parliament of the Anglican Communion. It has the majority that are non-orthodox and they exclude the voices of the orthodox. So I would say that the rule is the tyranny of the majority in the Anglican Consultative Council. And again the Indaba process and the Indaba game was used in the Anglican Consultative Council. 

Loss of Conciliarity

This is about the influence – when we come again to think ‘what happened’ we see that the Anglican Communion lost the conciliarity completely. In Lambeth 2008 there were no resolutions, so the ‘mind’ of Lambeth does not come to a resolution to say ‘this is the direction we want to have.’ I know a resolution of Lambeth doesn’t have an executive power but it has a moral authority. We don’t have a resolution in Lambeth but every voice is heard and every voice is recorded and that’s that. We saw the conciliarity that we heard from the early church in the ecumenical councils is not used whatsoever. And also in Lambeth 2008 about one quarter or even one third didn’t attend the conference.

The Primates Meeting in 2011 – they said we meet for leisure, thought, prayer and deep consultation, but not to have an enhanced responsibility, as it was decided in Lambeth 1988 and Lambeth 1998 that the Primates Meeting ‘should exercise an enhanced responsibility in offering guidance on doctrinal and moral and pastoral matters.’ So again it is stripping the most important two meetings, our most important two instruments from their conciliar nature – the Lambeth Conference and the Primates Meeting.

Loss of Boundaries

The third thing is the failure to make boundaries led to unlimited diversity and losing inter-dependence, failing the covenant. In any game there is a framework, in any thing we need to have a framework in order to play the game – in order to really do the sorting out of everything. But here we don’t have any boundaries. It is unlimited completely. And the call for listening and the call for reconciliation is a wonderful call; however everyone needs to stop what they are doing that hurts us in order to start thinking of sorting the problem. A husband who is committing adultery with another woman, cannot say ‘I want to reconcile with my wife’ and keep committing adultery, while listening to his wife. It does not work like this. So it is very important that we come and talk together in order to sort the problem.

Loss of Trust

The loss of trust is a big issue. Reasons for this are:

• Not following through on the recommendations; 
• Reluctance to support the orthodox, the faithful orthodox, the orthodox meet and talk and that’s it, we should leave them, and even those who were oppressed – ten bishops were deposed, about 1,200 priests in The Episcopal Church were also deposed and no one supports them, no one talks about them – not even pastoral care given to them; and
• The failure of the Anglican Communion Office to be a real representative of the Anglican Communion 

There is no trust because of these things.

The wrong assumption which people have about solving the crisis:

• ‘It will solve by itself in time so give it the time and everyone will forget about it’ - Now we are actually ten years on and it’s still there.
• ‘It will be resolved merely by listening to each other, the Indaba’ - we have been listening for many years and it is still there.
• ‘It can be resolved by giving financial aid from the North to the South’ – it didn’t work, again.

So these are wrong assumptions.

There are three attitudes towards the future of the Communion, and these are our responses, our attitude:

Attitudes and responses toward the future

• Restored Communion: The first is those who are hoping for restored communion: ‘we long for unity, we long for communion.’ And if you ask me can we meet as a federation or do you want a communion, I would say from the depths of my heart I would like still that we will be a Communion because the Communion is a gift from God [applause] and these people see it as a unique family and a gift from God that should not be wasted. This is fulfilment of Jesus’ prayer ‘that all may be one.’

• Federation: The other attitude is of those who prefer the Communion to become a federation: ‘we don’t care about this much.’ You remember the two mothers that stood in front of Solomon. They had the baby, and the baby is the Communion. The real mother wanted Communion and the not real mother said, ‘ok - cut the baby, make it a federation.’ [laughter] This would give every Province in federation more autonomy and more space for unilateral actions, but it takes away the interdependence.

• Reject Fellowship: The third attitude is those who reject any kind of fellowship, and want to go their own way or becoming congregational, which would be a very, very sad thing, very sad thing.

Now, the way ahead for us – I am concluding with this:

• Restore Trust: The first point is we have to follow through with the recommendation of the previous Primates Meeting and Windsor Report. This is the only way we can restore the trust between the churches of the Anglican Communion. 

• Support faithful orthodox Anglicans: The second thing – we need to urgently recognise and support the faithful orthodox Anglicans who were excluded and unjustly treated. 

• Recover conciliarity: And the third thing is recover conciliarity and this is very important. Unless we do this we will have many, many crises in the future. 

• Recovering the conciliar nature of the Primates Meeting – that when we meet, what affects all should be decided by all, and this was in Section 4 in the Covenant but it needs to be enforced and it needs to be empowered.

• Recovering the conciliar nature of the Lambeth Conference as well – so when 900 bishops in the world meet together and discuss an issue and come to a conclusion, this should have - not just a moral authority – a real authority. So the Lambeth Conference needs to have a conciliar nature.

• Adopt a more collegial and participatory approach in order to build a sense of ownership.  – We in the Global South, we think that everything is prepared or pre-cooked in London, at Lambeth or at the Anglican Communion Office. I know the current Archbishop of Canterbury doesn’t want this to happen. His links and his work in Nigeria make him feel that it should be mutual and we should all own this, the Anglican Communion.

The way ahead is re-establishing a covenantal relationship that affirms the interdependence with acceptable diversity – acceptable diversity within the non-essentials. What affects all should be decided by all.

The Anglican Covenant

Unfortunately the Covenant that we have now does not really reflect the hopes and the dreams, and it is not going to solve the problem at all. The Covenant:

• Should affirm our inheritance of faith as it was in section 1;
• Should affirm our Anglican vocation as it is current section 2; 
• Should affirm our unity and common life, that is section 3 in the Covenant; 
• Should affirm our interdependence – and this is where the division and difference is. 
• Should involve a clear mechanism. The current covenant doesn’t have a clear mechanism of dealing with crisis. 

Again everything [in the current draft] should go back to the Archbishop of Canterbury to decide if the issue is important or not important – so again back to the ‘colonial way’ of solving the problem. It should involve a clear mechanism for adoption of the Covenant – how should this become [adopted] – and involve a clear mechanism to withdraw from the Covenant.

Restructure the Anglican Consultative Council
Another thing which is very important is the restructuring of the Anglican Consultative Council so that it would represent the Anglican Communion, the reality within the Anglican Communion. Right now, 1 million members are represented by 3 members of the ACC and 20 million members are represented by 3 members of the ACC. This should not happen – it should be different – we need to look at this as well, real representation on the ACC. It should not be like a parliament where the majority rules would crush the minority votes.

The last thing I want to say is that the restructuring of the Anglican Communion Office which is now almost dominated by Western staff; we have no say in Africa or in the Global South in the exchanges of the Anglican Communion meetings at all. We struggle a lot to just change the agendas of some meetings. The Anglican Communion Office should support the Archbishop of Canterbury, should not work independently, but should work alongside the Archbishop of Canterbury and to help him deal with the Communion issues.

So we do need a Covenant, but the current Covenant was watered down all the time, all the time, until now it is ineffective. Even if every Province adopted the Covenant it would not help our situation because section 4 now says that every Province can come with all the resolutions and canons that they already have taken before signing the Covenant. So if a Province decided about a very controversial issue it will come into the Covenant with the package they are carrying at the same time. So we need to have a difference in this.

These are the points I wanted to share with you about the future of the Anglican Communion. Thank you so much.

The Most Rev. Dr. Mouneer Hanna Anis is the PresidingBishop of Jerusalem & the Middle East & Bishop in Egypt with North Africa and the Horn of Africa

Read it all here.  You may also listen to the presentation by Bishop Mouneer Anis here.

Breaking News: Archbishop of Canterbury will attend GAFCON Primates Meeting

Very good news coming from GAFCON.  Please continue to pray as Anglican leaders around the world gather for this conference in Nairobi starting Monday, Oct. 21.

From here.

The Archbishop of Canterbury will visit GAFCON primates just before the opening of GAFCON 2013 in Nairobi.

GAFCON Primates are holding a two day meeting, then 1200 leaders and lay people from the UK, Asia, Africa, the Pacific and South America will fly in to Nairobi for the Global Anglican Future Conference starting on Monday, October 21st.

GAFCON Chairman Eliud Wabukala invited Archbishop Justin Welby to send greetings to the conference and he indicated he was unable to do so in person because of commitments during the week. His office has since confirmed he will make a flying visit to speak with the Primates.

The general secretary of the Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans, Dr Peter Jensen, says "The Archbishop's decision to come to the Primates meeting is a recognition of the importance of such a large and significant gathering of Anglicans from around the world and he will be made very welcome."

Remembering Joe Kitts - Memorial Service: Saturday, October 5 10:00 a.m. Truro Church, Fairfax, VA #Anglican #Episcopal

On Saturday, October 5, 2013 at 10:00 a.m. there will be a Memorial Service for the Rev. Joe Kitts (1926-2013) at Truro Church (10520 Main Street, Fairfax, VA 22030).  The Rt. Rev. John W. Howe will be preaching.  A reception on the front lawn of Truro will follow.

Who was Joe Kitts?  We let those who knew him tell you!  You can read many of their memories and testimonies about his life and ministry made a difference in this world.  Click here for "Out of the Coal Mine and into the World."

Today at the Cafe - Because it's true ...

Today at the Cafe: Melanie sings Mr. Tambourine Man

Following the #HOB13 happenings in Nashville ...

If you are an Anglican/Episcopal Wonk, check out the posts here and here and here on the current happenings down there in Nashville.

In the meantime, here's a tune from Mumford & Sons.

A Prayer for Washington, D.C.

It is not the easiest time to be living around Washington, D.C. Heard this today and it just helped me focus my heart and prayers for this amazing city:

A very good time to pray ...

Praying for the situation at the Navy Yard in Washington, D.C. as a shooting is underway.

The Episcopal Church loses battle in the Diocese of Quincy

From here:

The Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman.

An Illinois circuit court has rejected the national Episcopal Church’s claim that it is a “hierarchical church” under law, handing down a ruling that supports the Diocese of Quincy’s secession from the national church.

Details of the court's ruling have yet to be analyzed by Anglican Ink, but the Illinois ruling appears to have rejected the legal arguments brought by the national Episcopal Church in its litigation with departing dioceses and congregations -- upholding the neutral principles of law doctrine over deference to the denominational polity of the church.

The suit came On 7 Nov 2008 delegates to the diocesan synod meeting at St John’s Church in Quincy, Illinois, approved the second and final reading of a constitutional amendment withdrawing from the Episcopal Church. The vote was 41-14 in the clergy order and 54-12 by the laity. A second resolution affiliating the diocese with the Southern Cone pending the creation of a Third Province in North America was approved 46-4 in the clergy order and 55-8 in the lay order.

Attorneys for the national church in January 2009 wrote to the bank that manages the diocese’s endowment funds, stating that the breakaway diocese no longer had a claim on the funds and that its officers should not be permitted to disperse the funds. Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori wrote the members of the Standing Committee in February informing them that she no longer “recognized” them as officers of the diocese.

The diocese responded by filing suit in March against the national church, seeking a declaratory judgment that it had the legal right to the name and assets of the diocese. The national church filed a counter claim against the officers of the diocese – which was without a bishop following the retirement of the Rt. Rev. Keith Ackerman – and sought a summary judgment against the diocese and its leaders. It argued that a rump group within the diocese that remained loyal to the national church was the true diocese, and the court should give precedence to the denomination’s leadership in resolving the dispute.

A key issue before the trial court was whether the Episcopal Church was a "hierarchical church”, as described in the 1872 U.S. Supreme Court decision Watson v. Jones.  The Supreme Court held in that case “the religious congregation or ecclesiastical body holding the property is but a subordinate member of some general church organization in which there are superior ecclesiastical tribunals with a general and ultimate power of control more or less complete, in some supreme judicatory over the whole membership of that general organization.”

However, the relationship of a parish to a diocese was not comparable to that of a diocese to the national church, the attorneys for Quincy argued. They further argued the national church’s 1982 constitutional amendment that dioceses acceded to the national church’s constitution and canons did not mean that dioceses were subordinate to the general convention.

Attorneys for the diocese asked Judge Ortbal to examine the facts and issues in dispute through Illinois law and judge the matter under the doctrine of neutral principles of law – the standard set in 1984 for church property disputes by the Illinois courts, not ecclesiastical deference.

Read it all here.

Today at the Cafe: More love to Thee

It is a good news.

Was posting this on another blog and thought it is such good news, let's publish it here too.

All that glitters is not gold ... from Gatsby to This Town.

A fascinating read, a fascinating interview - get your book here, watch the interview here and below. Read an excerpt here. And all of it is true.



Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby seems to be less about NY's Roaring Twenties and more about DC's Roaring Teens, right down to that "extraordinary sense of hope."

Watch that film here.  Preview below. It is also true.



Or as Shakespeare put it:

All that glisters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgement old
Your answer had not been inscroll'd
Fare you well, your suit is cold.

The Merchant of Venice

Tonight at the Cafe: Alabaster Jar

While he was in Bethany, reclining at the table in the home of Simon the Leper, a woman came with an alabaster jar of very expensive perfume, made of pure nard. She broke the jar and poured the perfume on his head.

Some of those present were saying indignantly to one another, “Why this waste of perfume? 5It could have been sold for more than a year’s wages and the money given to the poor.” And they rebuked her harshly.

“Leave her alone,” said Jesus. “Why are you bothering her? She has done a beautiful thing to me. 

The poor you will always have with you, and you can help them any time you want. But you will not always have me. She did what she could. She poured perfume on my body beforehand to prepare for my burial. Truly I tell you, wherever the gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her.”

Mark 14-3-9

Breaking News: Diocese of Ft. Worth (Anglican) wins in Texas Supreme Court

From here:

Today the Texas Supreme Court handed down decisions in the two ECUSA cases pending before it: No. 11-0265, Episcopal Diocese of Fort Worth, et al. v. The Episcopal Church, et al.; and No. 11-0332, Masterson v. Diocese of Northwest Texas. In the first case, the Court sided with Bishop Iker's Diocese by a closely split vote of 5-4, reversed the summary judgment of Circuit Judge John Chupp which had awarded all of the property and assets of Bishop Iker's Diocese to the Episcopal Church and its rump diocese, and sent the case back to the trial court. The majority held that the trial court had improperly failed to apply a "neutral principles of law" analysis to the issues. The four dissenters did not disagree with that result, but instead believed that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal from the trial court's judgment in the case.

In the second case, the Court by a vote of 7-2 reversed the Court of Appeals' decision requiring the Church of the Good Shepherd in San Angelo to turn over its building and all other assets to the Diocese of Northwest Texas. The Court definitively ruled that all Texas courts must follow "neutral principles of law" (rather than deferring to an ecclesiastical hierarchy), and that based on such an analysis, the Dennis Canon was not effective under Texas law (or that if it were effective to create a trust, the trust was not expressly irrevocable, and so could be revoked by the parish in question).

The two decisions establish "neutral principles of law" as the governing approach to church property disputes in Texas courts. (The Texas Supreme Court had last addressed the issue in 1909, seven decades before the U.S. Supreme Court authorized "neutral principles" in Jones v. Wolf, 443 U.S. 595 (1979).) And under that approach, as we have seen happen time and again more recently, courts are coming to realize that ECUSA's case has no neutral principles going for it.

ECUSA loses under a true "neutral principles" approach because it ignores the Statute of Frauds in its Dennis Canon, and proclaims a trust on other peoples' property of which it makes itself the beneficiary. And in the Diocese cases, where ECUSA does not even have the Dennis Canon available to it, it simply waves its hands and claims to have made an "ecclesiastical determination" that its Dioceses cannot withdraw from the denomination unilaterally, and that even if they could, the Diocese impliedly agreed to hold all of its property in trust for the denomination, and so must relinquish control of that property upon leaving.

This latter fact -- that there was a trust argument also made in Bishop Iker's case -- explains the unusual divisions among the Justices. The two dissenters in Masterson were Justice Lehrmann and Chief Justice Jefferson. They would have deferred to ECUSA's determinations even under a "neutral principles" approach, and have declined, based on the First Amendment, to let Texas corporate law overrule those determinations. For them, the Dennis Canon had "ecclesiastical" force, to which the Texas Courts had to defer. (Query: how does such "deference" square with "neutral principles", when only certain types of denominations qualify for "deference"?)

The four dissenters in Bishop Iker's case were Justices Willett, Lehrmann, Boyd and Devine. But as I noted, their dissent was to the Court's taking jurisdiction of the appeal, and not to the merits.

It is Chief Justice Jefferson who made the majority in Bishop Iker's case -- while willing to defer to ECUSA in disputes between a parish and a diocese, he did not see the basis for any such deference as between dioceses and ECUSA -- at least, on the record as developed below. Undoubtedly he joined with the majority to send the case back for further proceedings, and would withhold further judgment on the merits until after there has been a full trial and a normal appeal. (He expressly did not join in Parts IV.B and IV.C of the majority's opinion, which provides guidance for the trial court on certain issues which will be faced at the trial.)

One might think, given this split, that the "guidance" offered in those latter two sections of the majority's opinion is scarcely guidance at all, because without Chief Justice Jefferson, what is written has the backing of just four of the nine Justices. But that reasoning does not take into account the decision by seven of the Justices in the Masterson case.

In Masterson, the seven justices decided pretty much the same corporate law issues on which the four Justices provide "guidance" in the case of Bishop Iker's diocese. Thus, Texas law will control the issue of who were the trustees of the Fort Worth diocesan corporation on the relevant dates when crucial votes were taken. And that should bode very well for Bishop Iker's chances on remand.

Likewise, the issues of title are to be resolved by examining the various deeds under Texas secular law -- and that, too, should work in Bishop Iker's favor. Title to all of the parish properties is held by the diocesan corporation. Thus if Bishop Iker's trustees are the proper trustees in office, the property will follow the corporation.

I may have more to say after I finish a full review of the opinions, and may change some points noted above, but on the whole, these two decisions score a great victory for neutral principles in general, and for ECUSA dissenters in particular. 

Read it all here.

Archbishop of Canterbury speaks to the Evangelical Alliance

Here is the Q&A that followed Justin Welby's remarks:

Tonight at the Cafe: Il Silenzio

This afternoon at the Cafe: Here with us

The Defense for Dylan’s Voice

Yes!!!!  From First Things, Steven Webb totally makes the case.  His "In Defense of Dylan's Voice," is worth-while read before you head to see Dylan when he comes to your town, which he most certainly will.  Do we expect Louie Armstrong to sing any different - would he want him to?  There are times when I think Dylan is thinking of Louie or any the smokey blues singers from the last century.  The truth is in the voice and Dylan is capable of doing a whole lot of truth with what he has in his voice.  Let he who has ears, let him hear.

From here:

If you have been following Bob Dylan’s Never Ending Tour, online or in person, you’ll notice that a lot of people, even some who are self-professed Dylanologists, have been complaining about the roughness of his voice. 

To these critics I say: Complaining about Dylan’s voice is like complaining that your scotch tastes too peaty. If you want something sweet, get a colorless spirit that easily surrenders to the overwhelming invasion of fruit juice. Otherwise, let his voice burn your ears just as it sounds like it is blistering his throat when he sings. 

Since it is little more than decayed vegetation, peat is actually not a bad metaphor for Dylan’s voice, which has never sounded fresh and youthful. It was old when he was young, and now that he is old, it sounds ancient. Just as barley dried on a mossy fire adds flavor to whisky, creaky and rusty vocal folds (or so I imagine what a laryngoscopy would find) add timbre to Dylan’s singing. Would anyone really want a doctor to smooth the fibrous tissue or remove the bumpy nodules on his vocal cords in order to make his voice sound “better”? 

What I have said about Dylan can be said about beauty generally, but that does not make it less true. Both scotch and Dylan are reminders that beauty emerges out of and redeems, rather than opposes and destroys, the ugly. A little bitterness makes the scotch taste sweeter, and wavering off key makes the difference between a good singer and a great performer ...

... Dylan has always been an unconventional singer, but he knows, to paraphrase the Apostle Paul (2 Cor. 12:9–10), that strength comes from weakness. He knows, that is, how to sing against the weaknesses in his voice in order to reveal its strength just where it is most limited. 

That is surely not easy to do, nor is it easy to describe. Indeed, the sonic character of any voice, perhaps because voices are both intimate and invisible, is hard to pin down with any accuracy or detail. If so, consider that it would take a writer as skillful as John Updike, who indeed was sensitive throughout his work to the literary challenges of sound, to describe a voice like Dylan’s. In fact, early in his career, before Dylan became Dylan, Updike took on the challenge, describing him as having a “voice to scour a skillet with.” That seems about right for detail and accuracy but misses what lets Dylan get so deep inside your head. 

Dylan himself was skilled at describing the voices of singers. In his memoir Chronicles, he describes how Woody Guthrie “would throw in the sound of the last letter of a word whenever he felt like it and it would come like a punch” and how Johnny Cash’s “voice was so big it made the world grow small.” Dylan writes like a singer, just as he sings like a writer. 

To paraphrase the Bible again, this time a comment made about Jesus (Matt. 7:29), Dylan sings as one having authority, not like the pop stars who just want to please. When critics complain about Dylan’s voice, they sound like they are whining, which is exactly what they claim Dylan sounds like. Perhaps what the critics miss most is how Dylan’s voice gives sound to suffering while still being uplifting and, yes, entertaining. 

In Chronicles, Dylan documents the period, right before the making of Oh Mercy, where he felt like he was losing his vocal touch. The whisky, he says, had “gone out of the bottle,” and his songs felt like “a package of heavy rotting meat.” He had lost not his voice but his purpose, since he “wasn’t keeping my word with myself.” He needed to recall his music “up from the grave.” 

He recovered his voice when, taking a walk one night, he heard someone singing in a nondescript bar. He doesn’t name the singer, but he does try to name the experience he had. “I knew where the power was coming from and it wasn’t his voice, though the voice brought me sharply back to myself.” To paraphrase the Bible one last time (Matt. 11:15), Dylan sings as one who has ears to hear.

Read it all here.  Tip of the Tinfoil to Faith - thank you so much!

I put this up a few days ago, but it's a good example of a recent performance of Dylan's that he can use his voice any way he wants - and he chose a lyrical interpretation of one of his signature songs.  His voice tells the story as much as the words do.  Hope that audience was listening.

Please pray for The Falls Church

Please pray for the people and leaders of The Falls Church Anglican as they take the next step and appeal to the United States Supreme Court regarding the loss of their church home in Falls Church, VA.  Pray for wisdom and discernment and grace as they take this step.  The freedom to appeal to the highest court in the land is indeed a major part of our justice system in the United States.  Please pray for those who will make the decision on hearing their appeal.  We should hear later this year or early next year whether their case will be heard.

Please also pray for the people and leaders of The Falls Church Episcopal as well.  We are reminded to pray without ceasing.  In fact, Paul's words to the Thessalonian Church (1 Thes 5) is a very good guide from Paul on how we may pray for one another, in fact it is an appeal all its own:

But we appeal to you, brothers and sisters, to respect those who labour among you, and have charge of you in the Lord and admonish you; esteem them very highly in love because of their work. Be at peace among yourselves.  And we urge you, beloved, to admonish the idlers, encourage the faint-hearted, help the weak, be patient with all of them.  See that none of you repays evil for evil, but always seek to do good to one another and to all.  Rejoice always,  pray without ceasing,  give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. I Thessalonians 5:12-18.