Bishop Minns: What does all this mean?

BB NOTE: Bishop Minns, BIshop of CANA, writes to the CANA Churches on the recent flurry coming out of London. Here's an excerpt:

What does all this mean?

First of all it is clear that the Archbishop of Canterbury faces an impossible task – he is confronted by two irreconcilable truth claims. This has been the presenting problem from the beginning – that is the key issue with which the Windsor report wrestles. What Archbishop Rowan has chosen to do now, however, is to ignore the underlying issue and elevate process over principle.

Second, all of the various efforts at discipline resulting from several meetings and communiqués have been ignored. The Lambeth Conference has been reduced to a meeting where bishops and their spouses simply gather for group bible study, prayer and shared reflection. These are significant activities but hardly justify the enormous expense of such an extended and world-wide gathering. They also presume a shared understanding of what the Bible is, who Jesus is and what he has done for us. Without any such agreement how can there be a coherent gospel to present to a hurting world?

Third, the Windsor Report and the Dar es Salaam Communiqué clearly recognized that the various pastoral provisions for orthodox Anglicans within the U.S. - especially CANA - are in response to the defiant and unrepentant actions of the Episcopal Church since 2003. There is no moral equivalence between immoral living and a creative pastoral provision. To ignore this reality and to pretend that by simply excluding one or two individuals we can have business as usual is decidedly shortsighted.

Finally, we need to remember that all this confusion is simply one more phase of a global conflict for the soul of the Anglican Communion. I have no doubt that there will be many more media moments and decision points in the coming months. It is a profoundly important battle that has eternal significance. We would do well to reread Ephesians chapter 6 and remember that in the heat of the battle our call is to pray and stand firm!

One final observation: Nowhere in the announcement was any mention made of the unprecedented court battle that commenced in January and continues for eleven CANA congregations in Northern Virginia. This action, initiated by the Diocese of Virginia and the Presiding Bishop of TEC, continues in direct defiance of the Primates’ recommendations in Dar es Salaam; it is shameful behavior by those who declare themselves to be Christian leaders committed to reconciliation.

We are hopeful that the lawsuits will eventually be settled in our favor but this may take a very long time. It is a costly process that diverts needed energy and funds from vital ministry initiatives. One thing is clear, because of all the publicity we have almost unlimited opportunities to witness to the transforming love of God. We can all take heart in remembering that CANA was the place where Jesus transformed a disaster into a celebration – I believe that it still is, the miracle continues, and we will see a similar transformation in the coming days.

Read the letter in full here.

Please keep all rocks at the door

It took me a long time to figure out that this is not a drug song after all.

And though these are days of great trial ...

Behold He comes
riding on the clouds
shining like the sun
at the trumpet call
lift your voice
in the year of Jubilee
and out of Zion's hill
Salvation comes.

Tonight at the BabyBlueCafe: A Hard Rain

"...Oh, what'll you do now, my blue-eyed son?
Oh, what'll you do now, my darling young one?
I'm a-goin' back out 'fore the rain starts a-fallin',
I'll walk to the depths of the deepest black forest,
Where the people are many and their hands are all empty,
Where the pellets of poison are flooding their waters,
Where the home in the valley meets the damp dirty prison,
Where the executioner's face is always well hidden,
Where hunger is ugly, where souls are forgotten,
Where black is the color, where none is the number,
And I'll tell it and think it and speak it and breathe it,
And reflect it from the mountain so all souls can see it,
Then I'll stand on the ocean until I start sinkin',
But I'll know my song well before I start singin',
And it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard, it's a hard,
It's a hard rain's a-gonna fall."

B. Dylan 1963

Patience, my friends - keep watch and pray ...

Lambeth is over a year away.

A lot will happen in that year.

Once again, the Anglican Communion Office - with Kenneth Kearon and Jim Rosenthall - stage a fascinating media event. But these decisions will not be made by those two - as much as they may wish it were so. They represent the only "instrument of unity" still aligned with The Episcopal Church. They know that much of the funding for Lambeth comes from The Episcopal Church. That they are opening up the Archbishop of Canterbury's mail and proclaiming it as a media event must cause Rome to shake his head in sorrow.

This is an Anglican community gathering - bishops are invited in community. No one should find out they are not invited to the party because Kenneth Kearon and Jim Rosenthall stage a press conference, no - not even Gene Robinson should be subject to such humiliation as he was today. Oh but wait, we'll let him come with another bishop, wink wink. Right.

And we also recall what the Archbishop of Canterbury actually says in his letter, " I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion. Indeed there are currently one or two cases on which I am seeking further advice."

Fourteen Months, dear friends, fourteen months - and before we get to Lambeth we must pass through September 30th. As Rowan Williams writes, "I reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations ..."

Invitations to Lambeth are in the mail

BB NOTE: Rowan Wiliams, Archbishop of Canterbury, has sent the following letter to bishops invited to Lambeth. Note one rather interesting sentence: "I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion." The question is: if Gene Robinson is one of those bishops, how will other TEC bishops respond?

Here is the full text of the letter sent today:

Dear Bishop,

I am delighted to invite you to the Lambeth Conference of 2008 and I very much look forward to our gathering together as bishops of the Anglican Communion.

The dates of the Conference are 16 July-4 August 2008 and I trust you will already have heard something of the vision for the Conference as it has been unfolding. It will focus on our equipping as bishops for leadership in mission and teaching, and it will also be an opportunity for all of us to strengthen our commitment to God’s mission and to our common life as a Communion. In connection with this latter point, we shall be devoting some time to thinking about the proposals for an Anglican Covenant, and about other ways in which we can deepen our sense of a common calling for us as interdependent members of the body of Christ.

This will be my third Lambeth Conference and I am very confident of the quality of the programme being developed for it. I want to offer my warm public thanks to all those from across the world who have worked so hard at planning this – especially the devoted Design Group under the Archbishop of Melanesia, those who attended the St Augustine’s Seminar last year, and our Conference Manager, Sue Parks. Their vision and their advice has been an inspiration at every stage so far. I am hugely excited by the possibilities the programme offers for a new and more effective style of meeting and learning, and for greater participation, which will help us grow together locally and internationally.

Because there has been quite a bit of speculation about invitations and the conditions that might be attached to them, I want to set out briefly what I think the Conference is and is not.

The Conference is a place where our experience of living out God’s mission can be shared. It is a place where we may be renewed for effective ministry. And it is a place where we can try and get more clarity about the limits of our diversity and the means of deepening our Communion, so we can speak together with conviction and clarity to the world. It is an occasion when the Archbishop of Canterbury exercises his privilege of calling his colleagues together, not to legislate but to discover and define something more about our common identity through prayer, listening to God’s Word and shared reflection. It is an occasion to rediscover the reality of the Church itself as a worldwide community united by the call and grace of Christ.

But the Lambeth Conference has no ‘constitution’ or formal powers; it is not a formal Synod or Council of the bishops of the Communion, which would require us to be absolutely clear about the standing of all the participants. An invitation to participate in the Conference has not in the past been a certificate of doctrinal orthodoxy. Coming to the Lambeth Conference does not commit you to accepting the position of others as necessarily a legitimate expression of Anglican doctrine and discipline, or to any action that would compromise your conscience or the integrity of your local church.
At a time when our common identity seems less clear that it once did, the temptation is to move further away from each other into those circles where we only related to those who completely agree with us. But the depth and seriousness of the issues that face us require us to discuss as fully and freely as we can, and no other forum offers the same opportunities for all to hear and consider, in the context of a common waiting on the Holy Spirit.

I have said, and repeat here, that coming to the Conference does not commit you to accepting every position held by other bishops as equally legitimate or true. But I hope it does commit us all to striving together for a more effective and coherent worldwide body, working for God’s glory and Christ’s Kingdom. The Instruments of Communion have offered for this purpose a set of resources and processes, focused on the Windsor Report and the Covenant proposals. My hope is that as we gather we can trust that your acceptance of the invitation carries a willingness to work with these tools to shape our future. I urge you all most strongly to strive during the intervening period to strengthen confidence and understanding between our provinces and not to undermine it.

At this point, and with the recommendations of the Windsor Report particularly in mind, I have to reserve the right to withhold or withdraw invitations from bishops whose appointment, actions or manner of life have caused exceptionally serious division or scandal within the Communion. Indeed there are currently one or two cases on which I am seeking further advice. I do not say this lightly, but I believe that we need to know as we meet that each participant recognises and honours the task set before us and that there is an adequate level of mutual trust between us about this. Such trust is a great deal harder to sustain if there are some involved who are generally seen as fundamentally compromising the efforts towards a credible and cohesive resolution.

I look forward with enthusiasm to the Conference and hope you will be able to attend, or your successor in the event that you retire in the meantime. My wife Jane will be writing with an invitation to the Spouses Conference which will run in parallel to the Lambeth Conference. Further communication to bishops will follow soon from the Lambeth Conference Office, including details of the costs and a reply slip on which you can respond formally to this invitation. It would be a great help if these replies were received by 31 July 2007. In the meantime, should you have any queries about the Lambeth Conference itself, or if you will be retiring before the Conference, please contact the Lambeth Conference Manager at the supplied email address or consult the Lambeth Conference website www.lambethconference.org.

I trust you and your diocese will join with me in praying for God’s gracious blessing of our time together.

Yours in Christ,

Rowan CANTUAR:

Ends

Press Media
Tuesday, from 12 Noon - 6 p.m.
The Revd Canon Kenneth Kearon,
Secretary General of the Anglican Communion
will be available for press media briefings (no interviews)
Direct line: +44 207 313 3925
From UK: 0207 313 3925

From:

The Press Office – Lambeth Palace
London Se1 7JU
The Revd Jonathan Jennings
Ms Marie Papworth
0207 898 1280
www.archbishopofcanterbury.org

The Communications Department
Anglican Communion Office
16 Tavistock Crescent, London W11 1AP
Canon Jim Rosenthal
0207 313 3909
www.anglicancommunion.org

Richmond Times Dispatch: Episcopal Dilemma - The Church Betrays Its Own

Richmond Times Dispatch
Sunday, May 20, 2007

By JAMES OAKES
Fairfax.

Perhaps it is all too fitting that the latest flashpoint in the struggle for religious freedom is right here in Virginia. Those seeking religious liberty enshrined that idea in our Constitution. It is a grievous commentary that centuries later there is a growing rift between those of us desiring to freely worship and serve God, and those who threaten to keep us from doing so.

The recently formed Anglican District of Virginia is being embraced by the worldwide Anglican Communion -- 77 million members -- distinctly because we have chosen to hold steadfast to the faith and to Scripture. It was the Anglican Communion's authority that was formally rejected by The Episcopal Church (USA) at its 2003 convention.

Whatever schism that may be occurring was initiated, and has been perpetuated, by the Episcopal Church. We have argued unsuccessfully for years against the Episcopal Church's new course; now we have severed our ties to it. If it wants to continue on its prodigal course to revise and even reinvent Christianity, sadly, we can do nothing to stop it.

Unfortunately, the church does not intend to honor our decision to remain faithful to the scriptural authority it so forcefully rejects. Instead, the Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia have undertaken lawsuits to force us from the very churches our parishioners and their families have worshiped in for generations.

THESE LAWSUITS have continued in spite of the clear message from the leaders of the worldwide Anglican Communion at its recent meeting in Tanzania. The Episcopal Church is out of step not just with us, but with Anglicans around the globe.

The Episcopal Church leaders' decision to chart their own theological path isn't enough for them; they want to take our houses of worship as well. They filed lawsuits claiming ownership even though their names are nowhere on the deeds of our churches. They have also taken this legal action despite repeated assurances they wanted to settle the issue amicably if our congregations voted to sever our ties to them.

Even now, lawyers for the Diocese of Virginia and the Episcopal Church continue legal maneuverings clearly designed to force our churches to spend money on legal defense when it could be spent on serving the community, missionary work overseas, and spreading the gospel. Personally suing individual leaders and members of these churches, many of whom serve voluntarily without any monetary compensation, is anything but Christian and can only further alienate the many people we all hope to reach with the love of Christ.

Whoever thought American citizens would have to fight for their own religious freedom against an American church in the land of religious freedom? The Episcopal Church and the Diocese of Virginia threaten to bring the full force of their legal and financial resources down upon Christians who simply want to worship and serve Christ freely and peacefully. Their betrayal only strengthens our resolve.

We always believed these property issues could be settled cordially and equitably. We were disappointed when the Episcopal Church chose to cut off negotiations and stunned when they filed lawsuits against our churches, clergy, and elected lay leaders.

IT'S HARD TO understand the Episcopal Church's motivation for attacking us. In good conscience we are remaining steadfast in our faith and have chosen to affirm the authority of Scripture and the worldwide Anglican Communion.

In its formal response to the Anglican Communion's call to return to the authority of Scripture, the Episcopal Church said: "We cannot accept what would be injurious to this Church and could well lead to its permanent division." Allow us to point out the painful irony of this statement, as it is the Episcopal Church's decision to reject the authority of God's word four years ago that has actually been gravely injurious. It was the decision then that has caused the division the Church's leaders claim they seek to avoid now.

In the meantime, while it appears the strategy of the Church and the diocese is to try to intimidate us through baseless lawsuits and unending litigation, they should know from history such threats only strengthen resistance and invite allies. And our history further teaches that those seeking religious freedom eventually secure the blessings of that liberty.

James Oakes, senior warden of Truro Church in Fairfax, is vice chairman of the Anglican District of Virginia.

Church Schism set for Virginia Court Today

From today's edition of the Washington Times

By Julia Duin
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 21, 2007

The mother of all lawsuits pitting Episcopalian against Anglican kicks off today in the red-brick confines of Fairfax County Circuit Court.

The case has amassed numerous court filings involving 11 churches, two dozen lawyers, 107 individuals, the 90,000-member Diocese of Virginia, the 2.3 million-member Episcopal Church and the 18.5 million-member Anglican Province of Nigeria.

The Episcopal Church and its Virginia Diocese are suing 11 churches, their clergy and lay leaders for leaving the diocese last winter in order to join the Nigerian province. Since the 2003 consecration of the openly homosexual New Hampshire Bishop V. Gene Robinson, conservatives have been fleeing the denomination.

Some of the nation's top law firms are involved in the fight, including the 750-attorney firm Goodwin Procter. One of its partners, David Beers, is chancellor for the Episcopal Church. Hourly rates for partners at the firm go as high as $475, according to filings in a 2006 case in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The defendants are having to pony up huge amounts as well. The Falls Church, oldest of the 11 churches, has announced it will have a special collection June 10 to defray $342,576 in unpaid legal expenses.

Virginia Theological Seminary historian Robert Prichard said that in terms of the number of individuals and fair-market value of the historic properties, this may be the Episcopal Church's largest lawsuit ever.

He declined to predict the winner of the dispute. "I've got better sense than that," he said.

Circuit Judge Randy Bellows, no stranger to high-profile cases, will preside. He's the former assistant U.S. attorney who was the lead prosecutor on the "American Taliban" case of John Walker Lindh, and the investigator called upon to examine how the FBI bungled its espionage probe of Taiwanese-American scientist Wen Ho Lee.

The plaintiffs' main complaint is not that several thousand people have exited the diocese, but that they took millions of dollars of church property with them.

The suit also charges that members who wanted to stay Episcopalian -- mostly tiny minorities, but in two cases, one-quarter of the parish -- were not granted separate services on church property.

"There were people who wanted to worship as Episcopalians," diocesan spokesman Patrick Getlein says. "They were denied that. That was really quite something for the bishop and the diocese to hear, that there were Episcopalians turned out of their churches."

Leaders of the departing churches say no one has been made to leave and that the diocese has made it impossible for 21 departing clergy -- all under an ecclesiastical "inhibition" order -- to function as Episcopal priests.

Mary McReynolds, chancellor of the Anglican District of Virginia, the new ecclesiastical body for the 11 churches, said the diocese and the churches hammered out a "protocol" allowing conservatives to leave. The diocese then appointed a property commission to look at the assets of each church and levy an amount each church must pay in order to leave. Then on Jan. 31, the diocese filed lawsuits against each of the 11 churches.

"The members of the property commission were embarrassed by this situation," she said. "It was such an about-face. It took 13 months to negotiate that protocol."

Leaders of the departing churches, she added, suspect the diocese was pressured by church headquarters in New York to fight for the property.

"The curious thing is, not only did [Virginia] Bishop [Peter J.] Lee do a 180-degree turn," she said, "but the Episcopal Church had a policy of all property matters deferring to the diocesan bishop."

Read the rest here.

Artwork by BB's nephew, Johnny Ailes, age 10.

The Orlando Declaration

THE ORLANDO DECLARATION

The following was drafted by the staff of Trinity Church, Vero Beach in the Diocese of Central Florida. The rector of this church was a deputy to General Convention and was my rector at Trinity Church, Newport, RI where I worshipped in college. It makes excellent reading - and it would be good to see the Windsor Bishops agree to this declaration when they meet.

WHEAT AND WEED

Jesus said, “Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.”

I. Jesus is the Only Sure Way

Wheat: "I am the Way and the Truth and the Life; no one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6

The Holy Scriptures record the saving acts and words of the Word made flesh, Jesus Christ. To him alone do we need to listen in order to find life and peace.

Weed: false teachers seduce the faithful by insisting that there are other forms of divine revelation or that the Church can re-interpret the Scriptures without reference to the earliest and plainest interpreters.

We reject any attempt to preach Jesus as other than the Word reveals him to be.

II. Jesus’ Death and Resurrection

Wheat: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” I Cor. 15:3-5

The earliest believers witnessed with their own eyes the death and resurrection of the man Jesus of Nazareth. They understood those two events as in fulfillment of the prophecies given to the Jews over previous centuries. They maintained the veracity of their witness despite all manner of persecution.

Weed: false teachers, among them those vowed to be “guardians of the faith,” are undermining the historic proclamation upon which the Christian faith rests. They deny the Resurrection. They deny the preaching of Paul.

We reject all teaching and preaching which denies the ancient witness of the Church to the historicity of the death and resurrection of Jesus, called Christ.

III. Holy Baptism

Wheat: Jesus said, “Go…baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you…” Mt. 28:19-20a

The Holy Spirit in Baptism marks the individual as having a new birth. That same Spirit assures that former sins are forgiven, faith is strengthened, and adoption as God’s own child is confirmed. The Sacrament also differentiates the Christian from the non-Christian, thereby sealing the new Christian as part of God’s Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. But the Sacrament must be done rightly, with the individual or his sponsors prepared to make full renunciation of Satan, sincere repentance for his sins, and complete acceptance of Jesus as his Lord and Savior.

Weed: under the guise of being inclusive, some clergy are offering baptism to all who offer themselves, regardless of whether the offerer is prepared to receive the Sacrament rightly. Such casual baptism degrades the Sacrament and insults the Church. Over the centuries millions of saints have died for no greater an offense than that of being baptized. A rank injustice is done to their memory by cheapening baptism.

We reject the ministries of any who would offer baptism without calling for the renunciation of Satan, the repentance of sin, and the acceptance of Jesus as Lord and Savior.

IV. Holy Communion

Wheat: “For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, ‘This is my body which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.’ In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, ‘This cup is the new covenant in my blood. Do this, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.’ For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.” I Cor. 11:23-26

The grace conveyed in the Sacrament may only be received in a worthy manner. That worthiness is a gift of the Holy Spirit only for those baptized believers who are repentant and who approach the Sacrament reconciled with the Lord and with others. To those who receive it thus, the Sacrament yields the fruit both of remembrance and of presence.

Weed: clergy who promote the casual reception of the Sacrament in the name of hospitality in fact deceive those who so receive. The Scriptures make it plain that to receive the Sacrament in an unworthy manner invites God’s judgment, not his joy.

We reject any teaching and practice which invites the unbaptized to share in the Lord’s Supper. Moreover, we reject as false fellowship all casual use of the Sacrament.

V. Beauty and Order in Worship

Wheat: “…[in worship] all things should be done decently and in order.” I Cor. 14:40

While the Holy Spirit bestows differing gifts on individuals, when the Body comes together to worship, behaviors which unite should be paramount. Order and decency in worship are not synonymous with dullness; rather, they seek to unite the believers. When so united, the believers transcend individual idiosyncrasies and preferences in favor of lifting one heart to the Lord of all.

One of the great strengths of historic Anglicanism has been its Book of Common Prayer. Indeed, other denominations have used it as a model for corporate worship. More important even than the Book, however, has been the tacit agreement of all present to follow the service as printed and as prayed.

Weed: in many churches today the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, indeed, the use of the Book of Common Prayer, are ignored. In some cases the clergy simply cut and paste whatever liturgy they happen to like that week. In other cases the laity replace whatever words they dislike, for whatever reason, with words they do like. Example -- Book of Common Prayer, page 355 [emphasis added]:

Priest: Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
People: And blessed be his kingdom, now and for ever. Amen.

Commonly heard in worship today:

Priest: Blessed be God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
50% of People: And blessed be God’s kingdom, now and for ever. Amen

The effect of such ad hoc editing of the order of worship is to create disorder. The disorder is such that one worshipper is left wondering why another made that change. Yet another worshipper gets annoyed immediately at the loud editing. Ultimately, the result is to deflect the worshippers’ attention from the Lord they would worship to each other and, even more sadly, each one to himself.

We reject the anarchy of individual editing in common worship. We decry its prevalence in the pews and in the chancels of our churches.

VI. Authority in the Church

Wheat: Jesus said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. It will not be so among you; but whoever wishes to have authority over you must be your servant." Matt. 20:25-26

The orders of ministry have been entrusted to the Church by Scriptures and by early tradition. They are given both to remind the whole Body of its ministries and, for the ordained, to charge them to serve the Church and the world in Christ’s name. The highest trust placed in the ordained leadership of the Church is the cure of souls in the power of the Holy Spirit.

Weed: among the ordained leadership in the Episcopal Church today one can find wolf men dressed as shepherds. Their exercise is not service but authority; not servanthood but lordship. Ignoring the higher trust of the faith once delivered to the saints, they invoke “fiduciary responsibility” to justify claiming power and property not their own. In so doing, they seek to devour the houses of prayer which widows’ mites have built.

We reject any exercise of ministry in the Church which seeks to overwhelm simple justice with power, privilege, and devious plans. We reject any use of canonical authority which wants to beat clergy into submission under false leadership.

VII. Balancing Evangelism and Service

Wheat: Jesus said, “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” Mt. 28:19 Jesus said, “Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.” Mt. 25:40

The delicate balance of our Lord’s two great orders requires the Church always to be vigilant not to prefer one over the other. The Church at work in the world needs to look to feed the soul as well as the body. It is not faithful to our Lord to omit one in favor of the other. William Wilberforce, the great English layman who led the abolition of slavery in that nation, may be the best recent example of an evangelical who cared for others’ bodies as well as their souls.

Weed: some in the Church speak of “mending Creation” as if were possible for us creatures so to do. By “mending Creation” they mean the righting of social ills to the neglect of spiritual ills, as if human beings were matter alone and not spirit. The Examination in the Baptismal Office is thereby effectively reduced from three renunciations –

- Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness that rebel against God?

- Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and destroy the creatures of God?

- Do you renounce all evil desires that draw you from the love of God?

-- to one alone, that of renouncing the “evil powers of this world…”

Historically, some have committed the equal and opposite error, that of seeking to cure souls while neglecting the needs of bodies.

We reject any error of balance in the mission of the Church. False and injurious teachers suggest that, since there is any number of paths to the divine, to proclaim the saving grace of Jesus Christ alone is to speak intolerance. Likewise, we reject a hollow piety which refuses to aid the needy unless they submit to the Gospel.

VIII. Jesus Changes Lives

Wheat: “By [God’s] great mercy we have been born anew to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead…” I Pet. 1:3

Being born anew in Christ offers new life for the believer. In Christ, he can live in the confidence that the Holy Spirit wants to make him a better person. He can share in working out God’s purpose for the world. He can look forward in joy to meeting Christ face to face. The Holy Spirit wants to transform his future without regard to his past, in order to free him to serve Jesus in the present.

This transformative power of the Holy Spirit is of unspeakable comfort to those trapped by their past, to those locked into addictions, and to those tired of life.

Weed: rather than preach that transformative power, many pulpits today ring with hollow words of affirmation. Those who seek preachers who make them comfortable, and those preachers who seek listeners who make them comfortable, have formed an unholy alliance. The theology of that alliance speaks of forgiveness but not sin, heaven but not hell, justice but not morality.

We reject those who preach the gospel of affirmation without the Word of transformation. They are false shepherds who will run away when the first sign of conflict appears.

Trinity Church

By D. Lorne Coyle, MDiv, Robert K. Stull, MA, Valerie A. Balius, MDiv, Jonathan G. Robbins, MDiv, and Brady Johnson, MMus, at Vero Beach, Florida, May, 2007, who invite you to signify your support of the Declaration.

Ancient Music finds new life in new century

One of the coolest things about being Anglican is that we have access not only to contemporary worship, but to ancient worship as well (at Truro we call it "blended worship). There are days - weeks (and for some perhaps, years) when music of the past - the far past - expresses our hearts in ways that contemporary worship does not. In some ways, the ancient is more contemporary then the music written today for the themes, the poetry, the focus goes straight through the scriptures and is timeless.

Thanks to via orthodoxy who posted at StandFirm here, we've discovered an extraordinary resource from our Orthodox brothers and sisters at Ancient Faith Radio. Currently, as this is written we are listening to the celebration of the Eucharist. We are told that we "post-moderns" are into this (it's confounding some church planters who focus on contemporary worship - which we love here - but there you are). There is something almost "other-worldly" about this music - and our Jewish roots are so clear in the music. This is music for the soul - and so we offer it today at the Cafe.

An Interview with the Presiding Bishop (with commentary from BabyBlue)

BB NOTE: Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church, recently sat down with the American-Statesman for an interview. Pull up a chair and order a sandwich and let's take a look:

American-Statesman: I realized on my way over here I didn't prepare any questions about what it's like to be the first woman to hold this job. I think part of that is maybe we've come to a place where we're not as surprised.

Katharine Jefferts Schori: My sense, though, is, for women who grew up without female role models in the church, it's a big deal. For children, who are growing up with more egalitarian models of leadership, it's not likely to be such a big deal. I'm aware that I represent something because of who I am, my gender. That's important to some people. It's certainly not a focus of mine.

BB: While it may not be a big deal here either - it's a big deal to many not only in The Episcopal Church but in the Anglican Communion. Where is the gracious understanding that she is a pioneer - and not only for women also for men? We are in community with each other - it's not one or the other. How will men learn that women can lead in a relationship of mutual submission if she ignores the opportunity to make a difference - or just doesn't care? By dismissing that as "it's certainly not a focus of mine" leads here to do stuff like the unfortunate decision to wear shorts to meetings with the Primates in Dar Es Salaam. It's possible she didn't know or didn't care - and, sadly, that is a good illustration of her leadership so far in The Episcopal Church.

American-Statesman: I want to ask about that transition from the Roman tradition (attending a Catholic school) to the Anglican. I know you were young, so your faith wasn't fully formed, but how did the transition affect you?

Katharine Jefferts Schori: I had the gracious experience of going to a convent school directed by the Sacred Heart order, an order of French nuns. They were very structured but also willing to play. It was an experience of ordered freedom, which is something that Anglicanism takes quite seriously. So it's a consistent theme in my life. On feast days, we went to school and put on our gym suits instead of our uniforms. And I have vivid memories of these nuns in their full black habits gathering up all their skirts to run down the field to play kickball with us. So there was some real grace in that.

The Episcopal Church for me was a very different kind of church experience (from the large-scale Roman Catholic Latin Masses). It was an intimate community where people knew each other, where we knew the priest. He became a friend of my parents, and it was a place where people were invited to question, to ask questions, to wrestle with their faith.

BB: Gotta love her description of the Episcopal Church (we can see the press officers wincing in the corner - please pass them a pitcher of Butterbeer) where she describes TEC as "an intimate community" that was small enough that everyone knew their names and the priest is a family friend (which can all only happen if the church is under 50 people) and the point of church was not to learn how to become disciples of Jesus Christ or hear the Good News of Great Joy, but rather "it was a place where people were invited to question, to ask questions, to wrestle with their faith." No change, no transformation, no personal relationship with Jesus. It sounds like, well, Agnostics Anonymous.

American-Statesman: I want to talk about your commencement address. These people are about to go off into the world representing the Episcopal Church with all the knowledge they gathered from this seminary. What do you think is the most important thing they need to understand?

Katharine Jefferts Schori: I reminded them that they will give thanks for the things they have learned here, but they will soon discover they haven't learned everything they need to know, that we only learn a lot of that by doing it. Much of that has to do with learning to love the people God puts around you. In all their diversity and challenge and blessing. I talked, as well, about my recent trip to Honduras and what leadership looks like there, leadership that's willing to bless the seeds that are already planted, to see the possibility in people who have almost nothing, to identify that and name it and encourage it to grow. That people are competent once they're challenged to be competent.

BB: Was this why the graduates were bouncing around the Giant Beachball during the speech? How can they "discover they haven't learned everything the need to know" when the only place left is "a place where people are invited to question" but not get any answers. How will they learn what they don't know if all we do is "wrestle" with faith - not actually introduce people to Jesus? And where does He fit into this anyway?

American-Statesman: Let's talk about Bishop Akinola. You sent a letter to him asking him not to come to the U.S. and set up alternative episcopacies that would not recognize the Episcopal Church. He replied that it's ironic that you would ask him to follow custom when in fact your province has violated scriptural teachings on issues like homosexuality. Is there possibility for dialogue beyond this?

Katharine Jefferts Schori: I think the possibility for dialogue with him in particular is a challenge. The reality is that we have changed our scriptural understandings about all sorts of things, including sexual ethics. We teach something different about contraception than we did 50 years ago. We permit remarriage after divorce, despite what Jesus said about it. Homosexuality is the most recent in a long series of challenges. Bishop Akinola is arguing that we've changed our understanding. Yes, we have, but not wholly. It's a challenge to many people who don't want to talk about sexuality in public. If you look at attitudes toward sexuality in general, and homosexuality in particular, what they were like in this country 50 years ago, and compare it to what they're like in Nigeria today — pretty similar.

BB: Once again the press officers are wincing in the corner. She admits that TEC has "changed our scriptural understandings about all sorts of things, including sexual ethics." So where Scripture doesn't match the latest American cultural innovations, well - let's toss those "questionable" Scriptures out the wahoo and by the way, let's make a list of all things we've gone off the rails over, only let's call it all blessed! Divorce is rampant among the clergy and now the bishops (TEC now has a thrice married bishop in Northern California) and let's just celebrate that great success. She admits that "we've changed our understanding" of Scripture and then seems to think that Nigeria is fifty years behind America in theological understanding - the arrogance in this statement, the presumption is just staggering. Please, would someone pass the pitcher of Butterbeer over to the TEC press officers at the corner table?

American-Statesman: You are leading a denomination that is aging. It's not growing overall here (in the U.S.). How can you invigorate the church and keep it vibrant and relevant?

Katharine Jefferts Schori: Part of our challenge is to see the people who are around us, who may not be Anglo, who may not be primarily English-speaking, and say: "Here is a field ripe for harvest, even though we might not have done work as a church there before." The most rapidly growing parts of this church as a church are in some of those overseas dioceses like Haiti and Honduras and Dominican Republic. More forward-thinking dioceses are looking at the demographics and focusing their efforts on people who are there, not the people they wish were there or the people they're used to being there.

There's a young priest in Virginia who's starting a congregation. He talked about his way of gathering people to begin that conversation. He said, "One of the things I do is go to Starbucks and I sit down at a table and I put out this little paper tent that says 'Tell me your stories about God.' " It speaks to the reality of spiritual hunger of folks who may not have any experience with church at all. It means going out and speaking good news or listening to people and then offering news that fits. News that addresses the bad news that they're talking about.


BB: Oh dear, pass me the pitcher of Butterbeer (haven't yet seen this guy at any Starbucks in Virginia - but we'll be on the lookout). The irony is staggering. Forget about the Global South, friends. Forget about Archbishop Orombi (pictured) who obviously doesn't count. "More forward-thinking dioceses are looking at the demographics and focusing their efforts on people who are there, not the people they wish were there or the people they're used to being there." I can't even begin to unpack this one - I don't know whether to laugh or scream. "Forward-thinking dioceses" are looking at "demographics" and are "focusing their efforts on people who are there" - meaning the handful still in the pews, never mind the thousands and millions outside the doors who are in spiritual wilderness with little hope of finding their way through? Is she really saying forget about them and only care about those "who are there" and forget about evangelism? This is "forward-thinking?" Which means Nigeria and Uganda and other countries that are bringing millions to Jesus are "backward?"

Actually, the more we read this response, the more we are not sure what she's saying when she says that the "forward thinkers" are "focusing their efforts on people who are there, not the people they wish were there or the people they're used to being there" or "listening to people and then offering news that fits." If the teaching of the church is changing and it's not based on scripture anymore, but in making the gospel fit the culture which may or may not find Episcopalians sitting in the pews this week or next week, exactly what does the church stand for? She sounds like she's recruiting for the local Country Club, only it's not about golf anymore, it's about hopscotch.

American-Statesman: Are you meeting any resistance to this?

Katharine Jefferts Schori: I think some people expect that the church should look like the church did when they were 15. The reality is, the church doesn't live unless it continues to change. And it's struggled with who's in and who's out from the very beginning. The first great controversies were about whether or not gentiles could be followers of Jesus. Do they have to be circumcised? Do they have to follow the dietary laws? We have struggled over and over again in this country with the place of slaves, African Americans, the place of immigrants, the place of women in the church. Today it's about the place of gay and lesbian people. There will be another group next. I don't know who it will be, but it's our human nature to say (we want) people like us.

BB: The churches that I went to when I was fifteen was a vibrant Chapel at Pearl Harbor and an evangelistic gathering on the beach in Waikiki. That beach community is looking mighty good right now.

She must assuming her audience is very old and very old Episcopalians at that - that it's full of Country Clubbers with Trust Funds. And by the way, this is not a good answer if - on one hand - she's saying that "forward thinking" dioceses are focusing on "people who are there" while at the same time smashing those same people as being "people like us." What she's laying out here is a huge guilt trip on the remnant in the pews - it's not about transformation through a personal relationship with Jesus, it's about demographics and charts and forward thinking. She says its all about a struggle "with who's in and who's out." She makes TEC sound like a Country Club with restricted membership. Once again, it's not clear if she just doesn't know - or she just doesn't care. We can change the drapes and bring a guitar or a pipe organ (or even have church on a beach) - but what doesn't change is more important than what does. I heard the Gospel preached on that beach when I was fifteen and I saw lives transformed, often radically. It's ironic that she wants all the historic properties with their unchanging facades - but what all goes on inside them, well, anything goes.

The greatest irony is that she's not listening to the very people she says are not in the pews - people of color who are in dioceses and provinces that are growing, even under persecution. She stands there with emptying pews and agnostic sentiments and calls it forwarding thinking and those that are on fire for the Gospel of Jesus Christ are, well, still living in the 1950's - the last time the Episcopal Church grew.

We're all for patience and stuff, but sometimes it feels like ... well, let's just let this Blast from BabyBlue's Past say it best ...

Where were you in '72?

Rowan Williams in Singapore

Now, some parts of the Communion would be happy if we could be just a federation of loosely connected local bodies. I’m not happy with that. We could be more than that. We should be more than that. We should be living out of each other’s life and resources and vision and be more closely connected. Because I think that is what the New Testament assumes the local church should do and not live in isolation. They lived with each other, from each other’s life. So, that’s my vision.

Rowan Williams
Archbishop of Canterbury
During recent visit to Singapore, May 2007

More from Singapore with Rowan Williams:

Q: In your opinion, what is the Bible¹s view on homosexuality?

RW:I'm surprised there's only one question on this subject! The Bible tells us three significant things here, I think.

First of all, the Bible begins by setting out a model of human relationship, human sexual relationship between man and woman in the Garden of Eden and that seems to be the model from which everything else is understood and seen as the Scripture unfolds.

Second, in the law code of the Old Testament intercourse between man and man is described as something which is like ritually untouchable, it¹s something that pagans do and Jews, the covenant people, don¹t do it.

Third, in the first chapter of Romans we have Paul taking for granted the argument that this is an example of human unfaithfulness to the order of nature. But I think those taken together explains why the Christian church has historically, thought as it has thought, reacted as it has reacted, to homosexuality.

In the last 30 years or so, some Christians have raised the question of whether what we now see as the phenomenal of homosexuality in the world is exactly what the Bible has in view when it makes these prohibitions and these comments. And that is a debate that is by no means at an end yet. As you know, the position of the Anglican church is that corporately the Anglican church has not been persuaded let's say to change the traditional view on this and that's where our church stands.

That I think is how the biblical view unfolds and I do want say in fairness to those who have raised questions in the last 30 years or so, not all of them want to overturn the authority of the Bible but are simply asking, "Have we got it right? Have we understood it right?" But it's a long, painful discussion and you won¹t need me to say to you at this juncture that some of us in position of leadership in the Anglican church feels the force of the debate very powerfully but also the importance of not rushing into a change that will divide us, that will increase our difficulties in ecumenical interfaith discussion.

Ok, the TEC stuff is 911 but this just rocks!

We think this couldn't be coming out at a better time.

Bishop Howe calls for patience in preparation for meetings of Windsor Bishops and with the Archbishop of Canterbury

BB NOTE: As many know, John Howe is a longtime dear friend. We present his letter in full here. But we do ponder - in addition to the important points he raises here in his letter, namely the issues of love and patience - the issue of trust. What has been broken over and over again has been trust. We've learned in the last few days from Archbishop Drexel Gomez that the Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori did, indeed, agree to the Communiqué - only to come home and tell us that she just said she'd pass it on (and of course, she failed to do that at Camp Allen in March). When does trust become wishful thinking? Neville Chamberlain springs to mind. At the same time, reading the bishop's letter reminds us that is important we trust those who have shown themselves to be trustworthy - and a call to patience and love is indeed timely. One never knows what surprise is around the corner.

From the May, 2007 Central Florida Episcopalian

Dear Diocesan Family,

Two months ago I asked Joe Thoma, our Communications Officer, to publish the “Communiqué” issued by the Primates of the Anglican Communion following their meeting in Dar es Salam, Tanzania. It requested clarifications by the Bishops of The Episcopal Church regarding two specific concerns that have been before the Communion for the past several years: a) are the Bishops willing to give “unequivocal” assurances that they will not authorize any more blessings of same-gender unions? And b) are the Bishops willing to give the same kind of assurances they will not consent to the election of any more non-celibate persons in same-gender relationships?

They also said that they would create a “Pastoral Council” that would work with a “Primatial Vicar” to provide pastoral oversight for those congregations who cannot accept the ministry of their Bishops and those Dioceses that cannot accept the ministry of the Presiding Bishop.

We were initially told that all of the Primates meeting in Tanzania had agreed to these proposals, including our own Presiding Bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori. However, when the American Bishops met in Texas last month, Bishop Schori told us that she had only agreed to “present” the proposals to us for our consideration.

If you have followed the news, you already know that the American Bishops rejected the Primates’ proposals as an unconstitutional intrusion into the oversight of The Episcopal Church. (I thoroughly disagree with that assessment, but it passed by a significant majority.) We have not given a collective answer to Primates’ two questions, but approximately two thirds of the American Bishops have given their own answers, individually. Approximately thirty of the American Bishops have said “Yes” to the Primates’ questions, and about an equal number have said “No.”

Whatever those still “in the middle” decide, it is clear there will be no “unequivocal” assurances from the House of Bishops as a whole as we move toward the deadline the Primates set, September 30 of this year.

There are many questions, and a great deal of speculation, as to what all of this means for The Episcopal Church and The Anglican Communion.

I proposed that the House of Bishops invite the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the members of the Primates” Standing Committee, to meet with us sometime between now and September 30. Many of the Bishops believe the Archbishop needs to hear from us directly. All of the Bishops believe we need to hear from him. The proposal passed unanimously, and on April 16, Archbishop Rowan Williams announced he will accept that invitation, and join our Bishops at their September meeting at the Kanuga Conference Center in North Carolina.

Between now and then there will be at least two more meetings of the “Windsor Bishops” (those committed to being compliant with the requests of the Windsor Report and the Primates). The first is scheduled for June 17 – 19 in St. Louis, and the second for the first week in August at Camp Allen, Texas.

I cannot tell you how any of this will continue to unfold, but I ask your prayers as we seek the mind of Christ.

These are some of the things I know are true: 1) Many of our Bishops believe that the “full inclusion” of gay and lesbian people in the life and ministry of The Episcopal Church is not only a matter of “justice,” it is a “gospel imperative.” 2) Many other Bishops, including myself, believe that sexual orientation is not the issue, but sexual behavior is. Holy Scripture and the nearly unanimous witness of Christian tradition say that sexual intimacy is appropriate within marriage, one man and one woman in Christ, and not outside it. 3) However much we can respect the sincerely held positions on both sides of this issue (and I do), both cannot be true at once. 4) The Primates have repeatedly declared the position of the Anglican Communion, and asked The Episcopal Church to comply with it, and they have warned us that a refusal to do so will have consequences regarding our standing in the Communion.

I met with our clergy during Holy Week, and I told them (yet again) that I am committed to remaining both an Episcopalian and an Anglican as long as it is possible to do so. But ultimately, all of us may have to make choices. We will not all make the same choices, and we will not all make them at the same time. What is imperative is how we treat each other.

“By this will everyone know that you are my disciples,” our Lord declared, “if you have love for one another.”

It is not by all the sermons we preach, not by all the books we publish, not by the cathedrals we build, the missionaries we send out, the bold actions we take, or even the purity of our doctrine, but it is by the quality of our relationships with others who name the name of Christ that we will prove we truly belong to him.

We reflected together on what it means to “love one another,” and I suggested we use as a template the great “love chapter,” 1 Corinthians 13, and I shared four reflections with the clergy that I want to repeat today.

1) There is not a single “feelings” word in all of 1 Corinthians 13. The kind of agape love that Jesus calls us to, and that St. Paul attempts to describe, is entirely a matter of attitude and behavior; it is a matter of choice. I don’t have to feel a certain way toward you; I have to behave a certain way toward you. (There are a lot of feelings in eros; there are none in agape.)

2) The “love chapter” is a remarkable description of the Lord Jesus himself. You can actually substitute his name every time Paul uses the word “love.” (“Jesus is patient; Jesus is kind; Jesus is not envious or boastful or arrogant or rude. Jesus does not insist on his own way; he is not irritable or resentful; he does not rejoice in wrongdoing, but rejoices in the truth. Jesus bears all things, believes all things, hope all things, endures all things.”) The corollary is that when I run out of my own supply of agape love for you, I can ask Jesus to love you through me!

3) There are sixteen synonyms or synonymous phrases in the chapter, and nine out of the sixteen are negative: Love is NOT envious, boastful, arrogant, rude, irritable, resentful; it does NOT insist on its own way or rejoice in wrongdoing, and it never ends. Evidently, then, there are things I need to work on NOT doing toward you.

4) Notice how many of the synonyms are also synonyms for patience (or heavily dependent on it). You cannot be kind without being patient. You cannot bear all things, believe all things, hope all things, endure all things, without being patient. By my count at least eight of the sixteen words or phrases are synonymous with patience – which is to say that extending agape love toward someone is at least half a matter of being patient with him or her. The old phrased, “Please be patient, God isn’t finished with me,” is really a plea for an expression of Jesus’ agape love from each other!

I suggested that it is no accident that patience is the first word on the list; it is like getting the top button of your shirt right; if you don’t all the other buttons will be wrong, as well.

So, I say to you, as I said to the clergy: please be patient. Let’s trust the Lord. Let’s see what comes out of the meetings of the “Windsor Bishops” and the House of Bishops. Let’s hear what Archbishop Rowan has to say to us. And if and as we make difficult decisions, sometimes perhaps not in agreement with each other, let us do our very best to comply with our Lord’s instructions.

Jesus shared his Last Supper with the one who would betray him and the others who would desert him, and then he went to the cross for them – and us. And he said, “Love one another as I have loved you.”

My love to all of you,

John W. Howe
Bishop, Diocese of Central Florida

I was thinking of a series of dreams
Where nothing comes up to the top
Everything stays down where it's wounded
And comes to a permanent stop
Wasn't thinking of anything specific
Like in a dream, when someone wakes up and screams
Nothing too very scientific
Just thinking of a series of dreams

Thinking of a series of dreams
Where the time and the tempo fly
And there's no exit in any direction
'Cept the one that you can't see with your eyes
Wasn't making any great connection
Wasn't falling for any intricate scheme
Nothing that would pass inspection
Just thinking of a series of dreams

Dreams where the umbrella is folded
Into the path you are hurled
And the cards are no good that you're holding
Unless they're from another world

In one, numbers were burning
In another, I witnessed a crime
In one, I was running, and in another
All I seemed to be doing was climb
Wasn't looking for any special assistance
Not going to any great extremes
I'd already gone the distance
Just thinking of a series of dreams

B. Dylan 1991

A Reflection

When I arrived at Shrine Mont last weekend, I was so excited to be back to a place I've been going to for over twenty years. As I came over the hill, knowing that Shrine Mont was just over the next bend in the road I burst into tears. I felt the sense of loss I've felt so many times over the course of this sorrow-filled journey. We have our first hearing regarding the Virginia lawsuits on Monday and the knowledge of that, as I drove closer to Shrine Mont grieved me even more. There must be some better way through this - for more than twenty years of building friendships, only to find that they were built in sand.

Walking Apart

Lambeth Invites

We are thinking this morning that we are having a media war underway with TEC and the Anglican Communion office (click on headline above for more info). Notice that Ruth Gledhill is reporting that everyone is coming to Lambeth ("Let's put on a show!" shouts Mickey Rooney). We see this as bate (sorry about the pun, Stephen). The next step is for the orthodox to pop their corks - that the progressives can say "look how schismatic those orthodox are, so non-inclusive, so blue meanieish, yada, yada, yada." Jim Rosenthal (who is not a Lambeth Palace spokesman, by the way - he works for a different "instrument of unity" - the one most closely aligned with TEC) does not issue the invites to Lambeth. Advice from the Union Station Starbucks this morning: keep watch and keep your powder dry.