Here is the lengthy message Bishop Pierre Whalon distributed to his convocation, Episcopal Churches throughout Europe, concerning our Anglican and Episcopalian problems of the last few years and the U.S. House of BIshops statements from last month.
This is about 9 pages long, but is well done and gives a good overview of, well, everything.
___
The Feast of John Keble, 2007
Dear sisters and brothers of the Convocation,
In the swirl of meetings and statements that have characterized this period in the life of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, it seems good to try to take stock of the situation at present. As you know, the House of Bishops met from March 16 to 21. We had before us a draft Covenant for the provinces of the Communion. We also have a disagreement between the American Bishops and the Primates’ Meeting, as expressed in our reply to their Communiqué.
We are our past…
The present crisis has its roots well into the past, of course. One could begin the story of the missionaries of the nineteenth century, who courageously evangelized people around the world. However, they did so not in the context of the local culture, but their own. They taught the Faith as if it were unchanging and unchangeable, not only in its doctrine but also in its moral teaching. As Roland Allen pointed out in his classic book, The Spontaneous Expansion of the Church, the missionaries changed their supposedly fixed morality from support of slavery to opposition to slavery. And it changed again, when birth control was allowed.
Until the mid-twentieth century, almost all the bishops in the Third World were Anglo-Saxons. When finally local Christians began taking charge of their churches, their Anglican moral heritage was already ambiguous, not only with the hangover of colonialist hypocrisy itself, but with uncertainty about the foundation of moral teaching.
My predecessor here in Europe, Bishop Stephen Bayne, led in calling together an Anglican Congress in Toronto in 1963. The Congress endorsed a manifesto written by Michael Ramsey then Archbishop of Canterbury, and the other seventeen primates of the day, significantly entitled “Mutual Responsibility and Interdependence.†As Bishop Bayne remarked at the time, “Some will have to cease thinking of the Church as a memorial association for a deceased clergyman called Christ.†Indeed. The new energy for mission that this manifesto unleashed led to the doubling of the numbers of the Communion within forty years, from forty million to eighty, and growing from eighteen provinces to the thirty-eight we have today.
As time has gone on, the extraordinary growth of the Communion is the cause of some chaos, as the First World culture in which the missionaries encased the Gospel has itself continued to evolve, while the Third World has progressively sought to “inculturate†the Good News. In other words, they have begun to re-think the Faith in terms of their own local cultures, which are not by any means homogeneous. Among other issues to face has been the ambiguity of moral teaching, apparently immutable unless “the whites†decide to change it.
Monthly Archives: April 2007
The Archbishop of Canterbury
I have gone through a lot of feelings and questions with regard the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, over the past three+ years. He has lived a proverbial lifetime over the past three plus short years, and it really is unfair to him.
He was elected during my seminary experience and most of us, at least those with whom I spoke, were excited about Williams – a well known, well respected, and very good academic and theologian. He was the primate of the Anglican Church in Wales. He was of the Anglo-Catholic (Oxford Movement) side of the Church. He was then (and still is) a participant of a number of organizations that strongly emphasize an intentional understanding and support of the continuance of our Church’s Traditions (our catholicity), while seeing our Church as being in very different circumstances then we were even 50 years ago, thus allowing for the positive movement forward in examining our approaches to the hermeneutical endeavor. I truly respect the man as a theologian and compassionate Christian thinker.
When all hell broke loose during the second half of 2003 with the American Church’s consecration of the current Bishop of the Diocese of New Hampshire, we looked to see what ++Rowan would do. What would the leader of the Anglican Communion actually do or say? We believed his responses would be thoughtful, fair, respectful of all sides as his position requires, and consistent to what he has proposed and done in the past – continuance of the Anglican Tradition and with his own convictions.
++Rowan obviously has tried terribly to keep the Communion together over the past few years. I do not envy him one bit – really, this responsibility that has been laid upon his shoulders was not of his asking when he was selected to be the new Archbishop of Canterbury. He is in an impossible position, but he is in the position nonetheless.
Yet, I have gone through various feelings about him as a leader. For the longest time, I was perplexed by his decisions. I just didn’t understand where he was leading and how the direction he seemed to be going would result in a good outcome. Then, I thought, “This man is brilliant. He will simply let the players play themselves out and as the Archbishop, invite all bishops to Lambeth and those who choose to opt out, opt out. They will not be a part of the councils of this Church.”
Last year, I began hearing a lot of rumblings by English clergy about the Primate of All England, ++Rowan. The rumblings revolved around his inept leadership and inability to make decisions. Well, these are English clergy talking about a Welshman who took control of the English Church – who knows what is going on behind the scene. More rumblings about the real regret many of the English clergy now feel about his selection as the Archbishop of Canterbury.
Now, I really don’t know what to think. Right now, I’m thinking that this man is a brilliant academic, politician and leader he is not. I hope I am wrong.
With this man, through a whole series of events and circumstances, a vacuum of leadership developed within the structures of the Anglican Communion and over the past three+ years others have quickly stepped in to fill that vacuum. It seems those who have filled the void are pushing the Communion to be something it has never been. Those who believing in maintaining the Tradition have not stepped up to the plate to challenge the Anglican innovators. This new Church, if they succeed, will look very much like the Roman Church. The same group is trying to force the American Episcopal Church (and really all the more “Western” Churches) to conform to its will and is assuming power that it never had, with little resistance by the rest of the Communion. Well, until…
From the last American House of Bishops meeting three reports or “Mind of the House” resolutions, were issued. From one, comes this quote commenting on the assumed and increasing juridical power of the Anglican Primates Meetings:
“It sacrifices the emancipation of the laity for the exclusive leadership of high-ranking Bishops. And, for the first time since our separation from the papacy in the 16th Century it replaces the local governance of the Church by its own people with the decisions of a distant and unaccountable group of prelates.”
I do know that ++Rowan is a very strong believer in the collegial process, a conciliarly process, and I respect that. The only problem is that in order for these kinds of processes to succeed, there needs to be agreement on all sides that they will all sit at the same table, abide by the same rules, and that no one violates another or decides to take all their marbles and go home. This has not been the case, and rather than call the violating parties to account ++Rowan has bent over backwards attempting to accommodate them – to keep them in the Communion. He violates or gives up the very Anglican Tradition he so wishes to preserve. At least that is how it seems to me.
I have come to think that he is way over his head. He cannot make needed decisions and he is allowing himself to be bullied by certain other strong leaders. He is relinquishing his authority to others, and I just don’t know why.
If he simply said from the beginning to the American Church, or to the Nigerian Primate, or to half a dozen other people that he will not tolerate this kind of behavior, we would not be in this kind of chaotic situation. There still would be angry people jockeying for power and influence in order to undo what they believe should not have been done, there still would be provinces that call for an Anglican realignment, still be members of parishes that left the Church, and all of that. However, the Archbishop of Canterbury still would be in control; loved or hated, he still would be in control. Now, he is not. He is giving up his authority as head of the Anglican Communion – the only real specified authority in the Communion – to a group of prelates who up until six years ago had no such agreed upon power. Being in Communion with the See of Canterbury may soon be only an historical concept.
He is taking a three-month sabbatical before the September 30th deadline for compliance by the American Church to the demands of the Primates Meeting. I just wonder upon returning whether he will resign, whether he will have come to some sort of epiphany, whether he will have rediscovered his spine, whether he might even announce that he is swimming the Tiber. Who knows? I don’t.
I just wonder what could have been accomplished under his archbishopric if the force of division had not raised its ugly head. Perhaps this kind of leader he was never meant to be. Perhaps, his talents and subsequent influence would have been better served had he stayed in academia, or perhaps simply a bishop of a diocese in Wales.
I wonder if he has any peace of mind any longer.
Happy Easter
A glorious Easter Day to all, and a wonderful, meaningful Eastertide.
Was it worth it?
Well, the entire thread (the last two posts) has finally ended. The Titusonenine “elves” (those who mind the weblog) have shut us down.
I do understand what the guy is saying: the whole of Scripture speaks against same-sex relationships that include certain behaviors and that all examples of same-sex behaviors are negative and that there are no positive examples, either. So, whether there are positive qualities in same-sex relationships that include certain behaviors makes no difference, Scripture speaks consistently against all forms of behavior, period.
I contend that the presumption that all forms of same-sex relationships is a faulty premise to begin with and that this faulty premise clouds our right reading of Scripture, particularly of those few verses traditionally strung together to justify a anti-relationship position.
I agree that the examples of same-sex behaviors mentioned in Scripture are negative – but negative like: gang rape, in the progression of idolatry heterosexuals engaging in same-sex sexual behaviors contrary to their heterosexual nature. All examples present a negative image, but all the examples of negative behavior are in fact negative, whether engaged in by homosexual people or heterosexual people.
Of course, when Paul uses the word “nature” in Romans chapter 1, what does he in fact mean? “Natural Theology” had not been developed yet. And even if this were the case and we could look to all of nature, God’s creation, to discern what is proper and what is not, how does one neglect examples of same-sex sexual behavior among animals (I’ve seen plenty of male dogs mount other male dogs, etc.). What does one do with human hermaphrodites? And, if we are consistent, look at the violence within the animal kingdom. Do we want to take this as our example of a right ordering of human society? It looks more like “social Darwinism – survival of the fittest” than the call of Christ to love our neighbor as ourselves.
From what I understand, the prevailing Hellenistic (Platonic) definition of “nature” is more like one is left-handed by nature, blue-eyed by nature, tall by nature, a man by nature, etc. Thus, if Paul was trying to explain something to the people then, did he use a Platonic understanding of “nature?” If he did, then “nature” should be understood to imply “heterosexuals by nature” who are engaging in homosexual sexual acts contrary to the “nature,” likewise, if there in fact is a “homosexual orientation,” then if homosexuals engage in heterosexual sexual acts then they, too, are acting contrary to their homosexual “nature.”
But then again, lots of people disagree with this line of thinking. I don’t really know within a Jewish system what “nature” might mean. We can certainly assume that if the Jews of the time where obedient in obeying the Law, then men would not be engaged in things like what a man does with a woman with another man.
By the way in answering one of my many questions of him (which aside from this one he refused to answer), it was made clear that his method of engaging Scripture is within an interpretive system that is not Anglican. He seems to be a premillennial dispensationalist, which if fine if one wants to be because God only knows what the end will look like, but it is not an Anglican theological perspective. I wonder what he understands Anglicanism to be, and why he would attend and Anglican church, and why he finds it rewarding to post on an Anglican blog. Who knows.
Anyway, the Triduum continues, Easter is shortly upon us. The grave will not hold!
I just love Christians, part 2
So, after my lengthy post (read the receding post), my protagonist continued to ask:
“I kindly invite you Bob G+ to provide sufficient detail on the particular forms of same-sex behavior that you believe are not forbidden by God.â€
I thought and wrote and thought some more in an attempt to come up with a new way of presenting the “material” that just might make a dent in his armor. I decided to ask how he thought I would respond. You can read his responses (posts #125 & #126).
Here is how I finally responded:
——-
Truth Unites…Truth Divides –
You wrote: “My hope and prayer, as you meet and are led by the Holy Spirit in prayer and in His Word, is that you are led by intellectual honesty and spiritual integrity…”
This part of your sentence is exactly what I have done over the past 30 years. And that searching, seeking, praying, studying, discerning, listening, humbling myself, wrestling, more studying, more praying, has lead me with all integrity and intellectual honesty to conclude that Scripture, rightly divided and rightly understood in proper context and intent, does not say what anti-inclusion folks want/demand it to say. Scripture does not condemn all forms of gay relationships.
Now, if you can’t accept that this is where the Spirit of God has lead me (and an increasing numbers of people in all Christian communities), I can’t help it – as you alluded to in your second post directly above, my judge is my Savior (thankfully), and in His providence and grace I commend my soul, my future, my hope, my salvation, my joy, my sorrow, my life. In Him I live and move and have my being.