Walking With Integrity is asking people to email their bishops and help pull them out of the spin placed on the reprehensible Lambeth "Conference" by Rowan Williams.
Walking With Integrity has excellent suggestions, as well, for "reaching" your bishop. It's been over a week, I gave my email in the letter, and Bp. Whalon is the only one I've had a response from. Even if you don't feel you have much to say, it is important that you say it to your bishop! Don't let this Archbishop of Canterbury cut our bishops off from us!
I wrote, printed, mailed some twenty letters, so you can send an email, and with better chances of response than I have. It is vital that our bishops know that they are not alone, and are not given carte blanche!
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Thursday, August 21, 2008
So It's Not Just This American's Paranoia
From The Modern Churchpeople's Union, this report from a 72-year-old volunteer.
This part really stood out to me:
For me personally this was the third Lambeth conference, which I had attended in one capacity or another. The greatest difference was the lack of openness and the security. The press were not allowed to go to worship or plenaries, which is most unusual at international gatherings. We had to go to endless trouble to obtain passes. These were deemed essential for safety but when we arrived and not all were ready we were told that we did not really need them and they were too expensive to do more as they cost £4 each! I stood my ground and insisted we had them. People actually needed them if they wished to eat in the one restaurant where we were allowed to go. I am convinced that the passes had nothing at all to do with Islamic terrorists but were aimed at keeping gay people, women and yes- liberal theologians away from bishops!
Wow. So it isn't just our American pomposity and self-importance that makes things seem so lacking in transparency, egalitarianism and charity.
This part really stood out to me:
For me personally this was the third Lambeth conference, which I had attended in one capacity or another. The greatest difference was the lack of openness and the security. The press were not allowed to go to worship or plenaries, which is most unusual at international gatherings. We had to go to endless trouble to obtain passes. These were deemed essential for safety but when we arrived and not all were ready we were told that we did not really need them and they were too expensive to do more as they cost £4 each! I stood my ground and insisted we had them. People actually needed them if they wished to eat in the one restaurant where we were allowed to go. I am convinced that the passes had nothing at all to do with Islamic terrorists but were aimed at keeping gay people, women and yes- liberal theologians away from bishops!
Wow. So it isn't just our American pomposity and self-importance that makes things seem so lacking in transparency, egalitarianism and charity.
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
An Answer
Dear Mr Brunson,
Thank you very much for your note. I am sorry that I have disappointed you.
As you know, The Episcopal Church has not justified our position in any official statement. The traditional teaching on sex in marriage, for instance, remains unchanged. There are no official rites of same-sex blessings, which means there is no official teaching concerning them. The HOB has never discussed homosexuality in any theological form, other than the reactionary meeting of Port St. Lucie 1977. Each diocese has its own policy, as you know, which means of course that gay clergy cannot exercise ministry in certain areas. Which is ridiculous--who am I as bishop to have "my policy" on such an important matter? And yet I get letters routinely, asking what it is. (Answer: I want only good priests, come whence they may, be who they are.)
The point I am trying to make is that there needs to be a willingness from the whole Communion to find a way forward, or else we will simply be flinging slogans at each other for the next 100 years. Part of that work starts at home, and we need to do it with regard to our own context first. Much of it needs to be done elsewhere, beginning with the Archbishop of Canterbury. But the overall perspective must be global, if indeed justice for gay people is to be had. Furthermore, there needs to be more than mere justice--there needs to be love, as we have been commanded.
Perhaps we will simply stay where we are as a Communion--with justice for none and even less love. But that is unacceptable, for all kinds of reasons, and I intend to continue to speak out as I have been doing.
With respect to the open letter to the House of Bishops, I can assure you that none of your bishops wishes to act outside our polity--except those wishing to affiliate with other provinces, of course.
With gratitude for your efforts,
Yours in Christ,
Pierre Whalon
Le 20 août 08 à 06:12, Mark Brunson a écrit :
Rt. Reverend, Sir,
It was with *profoundest* disappointment that I read your recent essay entitled 'On Polygamy, Homosexuality, and Generosity' published on Anglicans Online Essays.
I'm a celibate homosexual, sir, and I simply cannot comprehend what it is you think you are doing - all of you in the episcopacy - to your homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm celibate by choice and *by gift*, sir, not by some misguided notion of 'generosity,' because it was God's generosity that gave us our sexuality. It was God's choice, as well, that non-celibate gays be called to the ordained clergy . . . unless you are willing to state, publicly, that our discernment to the ordained clergy is so fatally flawed that it would completely override God's Will in the whole affair.
In short, Rt. Reverend sir, I would like to know, frankly and fully, where the generosity lay in the moratorium on ordination of gays. It seems to be the bishops calling for this, and, I want to know, just what it is YOU are being so generous with. What do you lose? Will you renounce your orders in solidarity with your gay brethren? Will you become more active - dare we use the word 'bold' - in promoting this equality? What will you risk, sir? Where is *your* generosity in all this?
What I see, and what most of us are seeing, right now, is a group of privileged and pastorally-distant people laying burdens on gays and gay-supportive clergy and laypeople until they break! Yes, sir, this is what you are doing.
Do you honestly think that the people we're talking about will accept *any* theologicaly justification, regardless of Scriptural reference? You're right, it has been justified Scripturally -- and very publicly, and very transparently and we have been ignored, dismissed, vilified. You want justification? You want an understanding of theology? Ask the people in the pews who really live this. Stop excluding the gay people you talk about and claiming its someone else's fault. Be a leader, sir, or simply admit we queers don't matter to you.
I have attached a copy of a letter I've sent to several members of our House of Bishops, and I would like you to read it. We've done you the courtesy of hearing you out, and I would ask you do the same.
I await, as will those who see this letter on my blog, your reply.
Yours In Christ,
Mark Brunson
Here is Bp. Whalon's answer to my first email. He has since answered a second.
What I hear is a sensible, decent man with a complete disconnect.
He is working very hard to relocate some thousands of Iraqi refugees in France, after the US refused them. He is concerned with us (and, by the way, though I included my email on the letter, he's the only bishop that's responded to me) and our struggle. No doubt, he is "in the trenches," involved in a massive and dramatic undertaking.
And that's the point.
Massive and dramatic undertakings are just as outside the reality of TEC's day-to-day life as lived in its laypeople and parish clergy as the assertion that bishops can't be asked to make an either/or decision. The real world isn't divided into those who need help and those who don't . . . we all need help, and when we need it, all help is desperately needed. We don't have victims and saviors, we're all victims and helping one another. What this disconnect ignores is that the desperate person running and hiding for their life in the Sudan or Iraq cannot receive the help they need if the people they are looking to don't feel secure themselves -- if we feel our lives don't matter, our opinion doesn't matter, then why would we feel our help matters? There's also the reality that we are fallible human beings, and it's very hard to work up compassion and sympathy for those who, in turn, show none. This is the disconnect. Our bishops seem to live in a Platonic world, surrounded by ideals, rather than recognizing the world around them -- a world that is about to really shock them.
Here's the thing, are we wealthier, per capita, than people elsewhere? Yes. But we don't live elsewhere . . . we Americans, we Westerners, live here. We aren't wealthy here, where we really live, and that's the reality. Are we in constant danger of having our houses pulled down, or the government coming in and shooting us or dispossessing us because of our sexuality or religion? No. Yet we wouldn't be able to survive those hardships, because they are not our reality, and our reality is that we are just as devastated when we lose our friendships, family, jobs, voice . . . group humanity. Poverty is poverty and loss of humanity is loss of humanity. And loss of life. How many of my friends or acquaintances have I seen who, having heard time and again they are sinful beasts or their pain just isn't that important, have lost hope and lived for drugs, parties, sex and wound up dead, or worse? One would be too many.
You can't save the World, but you can save one person, and they another and another. But no one will be saved if that first. one. person. is not saved, however petty their concerns may seem in light of others. If this communion is really about relationality, then that's the lesson we have to learn. One to one is the only real relationality.
Thank you very much for your note. I am sorry that I have disappointed you.
As you know, The Episcopal Church has not justified our position in any official statement. The traditional teaching on sex in marriage, for instance, remains unchanged. There are no official rites of same-sex blessings, which means there is no official teaching concerning them. The HOB has never discussed homosexuality in any theological form, other than the reactionary meeting of Port St. Lucie 1977. Each diocese has its own policy, as you know, which means of course that gay clergy cannot exercise ministry in certain areas. Which is ridiculous--who am I as bishop to have "my policy" on such an important matter? And yet I get letters routinely, asking what it is. (Answer: I want only good priests, come whence they may, be who they are.)
The point I am trying to make is that there needs to be a willingness from the whole Communion to find a way forward, or else we will simply be flinging slogans at each other for the next 100 years. Part of that work starts at home, and we need to do it with regard to our own context first. Much of it needs to be done elsewhere, beginning with the Archbishop of Canterbury. But the overall perspective must be global, if indeed justice for gay people is to be had. Furthermore, there needs to be more than mere justice--there needs to be love, as we have been commanded.
Perhaps we will simply stay where we are as a Communion--with justice for none and even less love. But that is unacceptable, for all kinds of reasons, and I intend to continue to speak out as I have been doing.
With respect to the open letter to the House of Bishops, I can assure you that none of your bishops wishes to act outside our polity--except those wishing to affiliate with other provinces, of course.
With gratitude for your efforts,
Yours in Christ,
Pierre Whalon
Le 20 août 08 à 06:12, Mark Brunson a écrit :
Rt. Reverend, Sir,
It was with *profoundest* disappointment that I read your recent essay entitled 'On Polygamy, Homosexuality, and Generosity' published on Anglicans Online Essays.
I'm a celibate homosexual, sir, and I simply cannot comprehend what it is you think you are doing - all of you in the episcopacy - to your homosexual brothers and sisters in Christ. I'm celibate by choice and *by gift*, sir, not by some misguided notion of 'generosity,' because it was God's generosity that gave us our sexuality. It was God's choice, as well, that non-celibate gays be called to the ordained clergy . . . unless you are willing to state, publicly, that our discernment to the ordained clergy is so fatally flawed that it would completely override God's Will in the whole affair.
In short, Rt. Reverend sir, I would like to know, frankly and fully, where the generosity lay in the moratorium on ordination of gays. It seems to be the bishops calling for this, and, I want to know, just what it is YOU are being so generous with. What do you lose? Will you renounce your orders in solidarity with your gay brethren? Will you become more active - dare we use the word 'bold' - in promoting this equality? What will you risk, sir? Where is *your* generosity in all this?
What I see, and what most of us are seeing, right now, is a group of privileged and pastorally-distant people laying burdens on gays and gay-supportive clergy and laypeople until they break! Yes, sir, this is what you are doing.
Do you honestly think that the people we're talking about will accept *any* theologicaly justification, regardless of Scriptural reference? You're right, it has been justified Scripturally -- and very publicly, and very transparently and we have been ignored, dismissed, vilified. You want justification? You want an understanding of theology? Ask the people in the pews who really live this. Stop excluding the gay people you talk about and claiming its someone else's fault. Be a leader, sir, or simply admit we queers don't matter to you.
I have attached a copy of a letter I've sent to several members of our House of Bishops, and I would like you to read it. We've done you the courtesy of hearing you out, and I would ask you do the same.
I await, as will those who see this letter on my blog, your reply.
Yours In Christ,
Mark Brunson
Here is Bp. Whalon's answer to my first email. He has since answered a second.
What I hear is a sensible, decent man with a complete disconnect.
He is working very hard to relocate some thousands of Iraqi refugees in France, after the US refused them. He is concerned with us (and, by the way, though I included my email on the letter, he's the only bishop that's responded to me) and our struggle. No doubt, he is "in the trenches," involved in a massive and dramatic undertaking.
And that's the point.
Massive and dramatic undertakings are just as outside the reality of TEC's day-to-day life as lived in its laypeople and parish clergy as the assertion that bishops can't be asked to make an either/or decision. The real world isn't divided into those who need help and those who don't . . . we all need help, and when we need it, all help is desperately needed. We don't have victims and saviors, we're all victims and helping one another. What this disconnect ignores is that the desperate person running and hiding for their life in the Sudan or Iraq cannot receive the help they need if the people they are looking to don't feel secure themselves -- if we feel our lives don't matter, our opinion doesn't matter, then why would we feel our help matters? There's also the reality that we are fallible human beings, and it's very hard to work up compassion and sympathy for those who, in turn, show none. This is the disconnect. Our bishops seem to live in a Platonic world, surrounded by ideals, rather than recognizing the world around them -- a world that is about to really shock them.
Here's the thing, are we wealthier, per capita, than people elsewhere? Yes. But we don't live elsewhere . . . we Americans, we Westerners, live here. We aren't wealthy here, where we really live, and that's the reality. Are we in constant danger of having our houses pulled down, or the government coming in and shooting us or dispossessing us because of our sexuality or religion? No. Yet we wouldn't be able to survive those hardships, because they are not our reality, and our reality is that we are just as devastated when we lose our friendships, family, jobs, voice . . . group humanity. Poverty is poverty and loss of humanity is loss of humanity. And loss of life. How many of my friends or acquaintances have I seen who, having heard time and again they are sinful beasts or their pain just isn't that important, have lost hope and lived for drugs, parties, sex and wound up dead, or worse? One would be too many.
You can't save the World, but you can save one person, and they another and another. But no one will be saved if that first. one. person. is not saved, however petty their concerns may seem in light of others. If this communion is really about relationality, then that's the lesson we have to learn. One to one is the only real relationality.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
More Insanity
Bp. Pierre Whalon has written this essay on Anglicans Online.
Now, up to this point, I've always thought of Bp. Whalon as being a wonderful combination of level-headed and inclusive, but he's wholly fallen into the trap - largely a PR trap - that was set up at Lambeth by Deng Bul: It's all those nasty queers and their supporters' fault that Christians in Muslim countries have trouble.
An astounding claim, but even more astounding that it has been bought into by otherwise intelligent and sane people.
Now, I have no doubt that that is one of many excuses used by Islamic fundamentalists to justify abominable and barbaric acts, to lower themselves to the level of animals, but to think that removing every trace of "gay" from Christianity would make a bit of difference in that is, well, naive to the point of stupidity. They won't change their violence and brutishness because they are fundamentalists, just like Christian fundamentalists who won't change because it was never about anyone or anything but them.
Which is another remarkable bit of naivete in Bp. Whalon's essay: the assumption that one could say or do anything, upon any basis, which would change the fundamentalist mindset. It won't. This is not a point of debate, but proven again and again; just look at the total rejection of 40 years' worth of psychological and biological study by the pro-Proposition-8 fundamentalists here. Then, Bp. Whalon talks about having this conversation in public and transparently. WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING?! Even us dumb ol' laypeople can give you solid reasons, based on our reading of Scripture and understanding of Tradition with which we arrived at our conclusions -- usually more clearly than your average theologian . . . or bishop.
These conversations have been going on very transparently and very publicly for decades! Enough, Bp. Whalon. The only people claiming that it hasn't been discussed to death and needs better justification are those who simply say, "Nope. Uh-uh! Don't believe it!" What gobsmacked me was Bp. Whalon's dismissal of psychology and biology!
WHAT?!
What the devil - and I mean DEVIL - is going on in a mind like that? Has our episcopacy really been this infected by some contagious madness from the Reasserters? Has some evil force been given sway over our leadership? Or, is it just not PC enough, not media-friendly enough to say, out loud, "We sympathize with the problems in Sudan, etc., but we have a flock to care for here, as well, regardless of how white or middle-class they may be and we will live up to those committments?"
So, I've emailed Bp. Whalon, sent him a copy of my letter, and explained that I await his answer -- as do the people who may read my blog.
Now, up to this point, I've always thought of Bp. Whalon as being a wonderful combination of level-headed and inclusive, but he's wholly fallen into the trap - largely a PR trap - that was set up at Lambeth by Deng Bul: It's all those nasty queers and their supporters' fault that Christians in Muslim countries have trouble.
An astounding claim, but even more astounding that it has been bought into by otherwise intelligent and sane people.
Now, I have no doubt that that is one of many excuses used by Islamic fundamentalists to justify abominable and barbaric acts, to lower themselves to the level of animals, but to think that removing every trace of "gay" from Christianity would make a bit of difference in that is, well, naive to the point of stupidity. They won't change their violence and brutishness because they are fundamentalists, just like Christian fundamentalists who won't change because it was never about anyone or anything but them.
Which is another remarkable bit of naivete in Bp. Whalon's essay: the assumption that one could say or do anything, upon any basis, which would change the fundamentalist mindset. It won't. This is not a point of debate, but proven again and again; just look at the total rejection of 40 years' worth of psychological and biological study by the pro-Proposition-8 fundamentalists here. Then, Bp. Whalon talks about having this conversation in public and transparently. WHAT HAVE WE BEEN DOING?! Even us dumb ol' laypeople can give you solid reasons, based on our reading of Scripture and understanding of Tradition with which we arrived at our conclusions -- usually more clearly than your average theologian . . . or bishop.
These conversations have been going on very transparently and very publicly for decades! Enough, Bp. Whalon. The only people claiming that it hasn't been discussed to death and needs better justification are those who simply say, "Nope. Uh-uh! Don't believe it!" What gobsmacked me was Bp. Whalon's dismissal of psychology and biology!
WHAT?!
What the devil - and I mean DEVIL - is going on in a mind like that? Has our episcopacy really been this infected by some contagious madness from the Reasserters? Has some evil force been given sway over our leadership? Or, is it just not PC enough, not media-friendly enough to say, out loud, "We sympathize with the problems in Sudan, etc., but we have a flock to care for here, as well, regardless of how white or middle-class they may be and we will live up to those committments?"
So, I've emailed Bp. Whalon, sent him a copy of my letter, and explained that I await his answer -- as do the people who may read my blog.
Monday, August 18, 2008
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
The Good Part About Supply Priests
We've had several supply priests since Fr. Bullion retired at the end of June, and, by far, the two best sermons have been from female priests - The Rev. Joy Fisher and Sr. Elena Thompson, OP.
The Rev. Fisher (I tend to think "Mother Fisher" like "Father Bullion," but some find it awkward) is a lawyer, as well, and brings the passionate delivery of an attorney to her sermons, a depth of earnestness, conviction and authority which I find incredible! She delivered a sermon on the Parable of the Sower that has really caused me to change a lot of my habits and perceptions.
Sr. Elena is brilliant, as well. In here is a depth of scholarship and spiritual introspection that combined to make a sermon event! She delivered such a stirring sermon on the multiple levels of prayer, on its binding effect communally, both horizontally and vertically - each other and God - and it was delivered in a voice and expression of complete joy and openness.
The men (but for the one retired priest who's joined our parish) have been . . . indifferent. We had a young priest from another parish in town, and he has that problem of recent seminarians; he is undoubtedly a brilliant young man, and much given to deep scholarship, but, somehow, it's not yet his own. He hasn't integrated it as faith and conviction, but holds it in the earnest "otherness" of the young and untried. I have great hope in him, though, because, in addition to brilliance, he radiates warmth and real compassion.
The Rev. Fisher (I tend to think "Mother Fisher" like "Father Bullion," but some find it awkward) is a lawyer, as well, and brings the passionate delivery of an attorney to her sermons, a depth of earnestness, conviction and authority which I find incredible! She delivered a sermon on the Parable of the Sower that has really caused me to change a lot of my habits and perceptions.
Sr. Elena is brilliant, as well. In here is a depth of scholarship and spiritual introspection that combined to make a sermon event! She delivered such a stirring sermon on the multiple levels of prayer, on its binding effect communally, both horizontally and vertically - each other and God - and it was delivered in a voice and expression of complete joy and openness.
The men (but for the one retired priest who's joined our parish) have been . . . indifferent. We had a young priest from another parish in town, and he has that problem of recent seminarians; he is undoubtedly a brilliant young man, and much given to deep scholarship, but, somehow, it's not yet his own. He hasn't integrated it as faith and conviction, but holds it in the earnest "otherness" of the young and untried. I have great hope in him, though, because, in addition to brilliance, he radiates warmth and real compassion.
I'm A Rabble Rouser!
I actually sent a letter to my vestry, seriously recommending (that's about as close as I can get to demanding) that our parish make clear that none of our money to the diocese is to go to the Lambeth Conference. I also added that, if the vestry felt they could not do this in our time between rectors, that they please publish my letter in our parish newsletter as a personal appeal to our parishioners to specifically designate that their offerings are not to go to support the Lambeth Conference.
Please, Please Go and Read This
I get so wrapped up in the power struggles in the AC, I forget that there are far more immediate issues of life and death amongst us. I feel shame for that, as I should.
Doxy has covered it beautifully in in this post and corresponding links on the rise and reasons for that rise of AIDS right here.
The truth is, while I get so wrapped up in gays and lesbians being used as a distraction and a whipping-boy for the grave - perhaps insoluble problems - of the world at large, there are greater concerns out there, and deeper work than the problems of gay marriage.
This doesn't mean that this is no longer my fight - by the very fact of my being gay, it is - but it means that we must look beyond form to the very depths of the hate, the secrecy, the self-loathing and shame that is generated by, and at the same time feeds, the religious and social bigotry, and recognize this bigotry extends to so many other aspects of life, besides race, gender, orientation, and is within even the best of us.
I consider my sexuality to be a blessing in this; as I've said before, I am not a liberal, but a conservative with a liberal outlook. I am deeply conservative. Were it not for my sexuality - my being in a minority - I would never have looked at the topic of bigotry. But for my sexuality, there go I as Venables, or Duncan or, God forbid, Akinola. My sexuality allowed me to become aware of bigotry - the pervasive ignorance that breeds in unquestioned assumptions known as "common sense" in the secular and "plain reading of the Bible" in religious circles.
Yet, I must keep in mind that I - a white male - am in a majority, as well, and use that aspect of myself to help liberate from all ignorance and bigotry.
Doxy has covered it beautifully in in this post and corresponding links on the rise and reasons for that rise of AIDS right here.
The truth is, while I get so wrapped up in gays and lesbians being used as a distraction and a whipping-boy for the grave - perhaps insoluble problems - of the world at large, there are greater concerns out there, and deeper work than the problems of gay marriage.
This doesn't mean that this is no longer my fight - by the very fact of my being gay, it is - but it means that we must look beyond form to the very depths of the hate, the secrecy, the self-loathing and shame that is generated by, and at the same time feeds, the religious and social bigotry, and recognize this bigotry extends to so many other aspects of life, besides race, gender, orientation, and is within even the best of us.
I consider my sexuality to be a blessing in this; as I've said before, I am not a liberal, but a conservative with a liberal outlook. I am deeply conservative. Were it not for my sexuality - my being in a minority - I would never have looked at the topic of bigotry. But for my sexuality, there go I as Venables, or Duncan or, God forbid, Akinola. My sexuality allowed me to become aware of bigotry - the pervasive ignorance that breeds in unquestioned assumptions known as "common sense" in the secular and "plain reading of the Bible" in religious circles.
Yet, I must keep in mind that I - a white male - am in a majority, as well, and use that aspect of myself to help liberate from all ignorance and bigotry.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Must Read!
The wonderful Katie Sherrod has some very interesting information on Bp. Iker and his machinations, here.
Please do read.
Please do read.
All Right, Then . . .
. . I guess I'll just have to get my own names!
Maybe Santa Chiara will look in her television in help. :D
Maybe Santa Chiara will look in her television in help. :D
Thursday, August 7, 2008
All Right, I'll Send It
Thank you all who've commented on the letter. I've been really torn as to whether or not to actually send it, and you've decided me. Perhaps it will do some good.
Now, to whom should I send it?
The obvious ones to me are:
The Presiding Bishop
Henry Louttit of Georgia Diocese
J. Neil Alexander of Atlanta Diocese
Bishops Bruno and Andrus
But that's all I have -- the PB for obvious reasons; Henry, because he is my bishop, and, though he'll likely disregard it, and is retiring, I owe him that much as my bishop and a decent man; Bishop Alexander because he's the other Georgia diocese, and has written (and one assumes profited from) his journey in understanding of homosexuality and seems unwilling to actually extend further than that; Bishops Bruno and Andrus because they should know we appreciate their having had the courage to speak out in defiance of Williams' scheme.
Who else? I don't want to pummel our allies in the HoB, but I don't see much to be gained from writing to the likes of Iker or Lawrence. I will, however, be very willing to listen to your suggestions.
Now, to whom should I send it?
The obvious ones to me are:
The Presiding Bishop
Henry Louttit of Georgia Diocese
J. Neil Alexander of Atlanta Diocese
Bishops Bruno and Andrus
But that's all I have -- the PB for obvious reasons; Henry, because he is my bishop, and, though he'll likely disregard it, and is retiring, I owe him that much as my bishop and a decent man; Bishop Alexander because he's the other Georgia diocese, and has written (and one assumes profited from) his journey in understanding of homosexuality and seems unwilling to actually extend further than that; Bishops Bruno and Andrus because they should know we appreciate their having had the courage to speak out in defiance of Williams' scheme.
Who else? I don't want to pummel our allies in the HoB, but I don't see much to be gained from writing to the likes of Iker or Lawrence. I will, however, be very willing to listen to your suggestions.
Monday, August 4, 2008
The Letter to the Bishops
This is the message I've composed in response to FS's request/question.
Though I list no names, if I am going to claim the backing of others, I would like your comments and corrections on this very rough draft, which I've composed, mostly on the fly. There are parts I've felt are too soft, others too harsh, but we're never the best critic of our own work.
This has been written at the request of others, who, seeing my concerns on my blog, felt that these concerns needed to be shared with our own ecclesial leadership. Though I cannot claim to speak for a majority or even many, I believe that there are some righteous concerns to be addressed to our bishops. To that end, I am sending this letter to a few of The Episcopal Church’s bishops, in the hopes that it will generate at least some response, perhaps discussion in the larger national church, and might be shared amongst the bishops in our church.
First, let me say that many of us feel that the recent Lambeth Conference has underscored, and brought to a head, many basic problems in our church as it relates to the Anglican Communion, and as it relates to the egalitarian nature of our own church. What has now become clear is that our bishops are in an untenable position, requiring maintenance of both the unity of the Anglican Communion and the unity of the Episcopal Church. Quite simply put, this is no longer possible.
The punitive and biased words and actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, make it clear that he has neither respect nor patience for our democratic process in the American church. To this end, he proposes a curial model for the Anglican Communion which will place The Episcopal Church under the control, however indirectly, of bodies outside our provincial polity and essentially hostile to that polity. To opt for such a curial – or, as the Archbishop would have it, “covenantal” model – would be a betrayal of The Episcopal Church and those for whom you are accountable and to whom you are accountable.
Let me explain what I mean by this accountability. We are all – by choice – members of a church that operates on a hierarchical model. To this end, it is recognized that a bishop has a particular charism and a mandate to leadership. Without this realization, we would simply be one among many republican representative models readily available in the secular world. We accept that Grace is given in an outpouring to allow this leadership function. However, this is not leadership as is envisioned in the entirely authoritarian structure of the Middle Ages, nor that provided by the models of, say, the Church of England, in which a higher political authority is entirely responsible for the appointment of such a figure. The model envisioned in The Episcopal Church and set forth clearly in the ordination service, is rather one of a leader elevated from among the people, set apart, but not above. The ordination service reiterates this in the use of expressions such as “fellow presbyters,” “your people,” and, even asking the congregation “Is it your will that we ordain . . . ?” The bishop is a leader, but in the sense of a sibling, not a parent, understood to be equally fallible and equally in need of seeking counsel, and is enjoined to seek counsel from his/her “fellow presbyters” – priests, and all are, by virtue of baptism, called to the royal priesthood. In short, this form of episcopacy is not the mere managerial model offered by other churches, but a pastoral position which requires mutual accountability and humility – a reciprocity that requires both bishop and people – a people sanctified in baptism as priests themselves - recognize their interdependence, mutual accountability and mutual fallibility, and seek one another’s counsel.
The “covenantal” model that we are seeing is anathema to this very understanding! A primatial council, with the authority to set the bar of acceptability, which requires episcopal councils to decide membership is necessarily exclusive of the laity, priesthood, and diaconate, and, as such, hostile toward our polity and our charism. If you hand off this power to direct our church to a council of those disinterested and incapable of making truly pastoral decisions, you will, in your quest for unity, sacrifice The Episcopal Church, your diocese, the very people who trusted and elevated you. You will have sold your ecclesial heritage for a mess of pottage. Even were you to lose but a handful of individuals from TEC, and, quite possibly, from the very Church of Christ itself, that will be the breaking of The Episcopal Church. As it is, you surely realize that you will lose far more than that handful, and will inevitably drive a wedge between you and the very people of The Episcopal Church. The question is a painful one for you, and I regret you have to ask it, but, simply put, will you serve the idea of the Anglican Communion, or will you serve the people to whom you vowed service, those who trusted you to lead and, more, to help them?
This Lambeth Conference has also made clear to us something which is painful to say, perhaps dangerous to say, but which must be said, clearly, lovingly, and with the voice of prophetic witness: At this conference, you have grievously wounded and failed those who were entrusted to you.
You were called, in your ordination, to “. . boldly proclaim and interpret the Gospel of Christ, enlightening minds and stirring up the conscience of your people . . .” In what way can you be said to have boldly given forth the Good News as received and interpreted by you, or The Episcopal Church, at this conference by acting the hangdog over our desire for justice and inclusion? When you left your brother bishop, Gene Robinson, outside the gates, you left out, not just gays and lesbians, but the very church you represented – all of your brothers and sisters. When you sat in silence as our vision and our understanding was reviled and misrepresented, even by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, do you not realize that your bloodless and passionless regard for your people deprived you of the right to claim prophetic or apostolic authority? In what way did you “support all baptized people in their gifts and ministries” by downplaying the works and gifts of others, the zeal and compassion shown by those entrusted to you? How were you “merciful to all, show[ing] compassion to the poor and strangers, and defend[ing] those who have no helper” by offering the sacrifice of the marginalized in secret counsel? Your desire – however earnest and well-intentioned – of cutting off the laity, priesthood and diaconate from your deliberations and discussions were, in the end, disastrous. It allowed the media to run wild, it generated “rumors of war” that would have been humorous, were it not that each and every one has left a scar or open wound on a soul somewhere.
This is how the current situation appears to us, and, frankly, you show no signs of confiding further in us, nor of seeking counsel from us. So, the question is now how – or if – you will be faithful to your vows as bishops in this, The Episcopal Church.
I – we – thank you for your time and your consideration. Keep in mind that these things are written from wounded and yearning hearts which love you, oh, so dearly, and which wait to see if they are a part of their own church, or merely unnoticed grist in the ecclesial mill.
Your response will ring through generations to come.
Yours In Christ,
Mark ******(personal info removed on advice)
Though I list no names, if I am going to claim the backing of others, I would like your comments and corrections on this very rough draft, which I've composed, mostly on the fly. There are parts I've felt are too soft, others too harsh, but we're never the best critic of our own work.
This has been written at the request of others, who, seeing my concerns on my blog, felt that these concerns needed to be shared with our own ecclesial leadership. Though I cannot claim to speak for a majority or even many, I believe that there are some righteous concerns to be addressed to our bishops. To that end, I am sending this letter to a few of The Episcopal Church’s bishops, in the hopes that it will generate at least some response, perhaps discussion in the larger national church, and might be shared amongst the bishops in our church.
First, let me say that many of us feel that the recent Lambeth Conference has underscored, and brought to a head, many basic problems in our church as it relates to the Anglican Communion, and as it relates to the egalitarian nature of our own church. What has now become clear is that our bishops are in an untenable position, requiring maintenance of both the unity of the Anglican Communion and the unity of the Episcopal Church. Quite simply put, this is no longer possible.
The punitive and biased words and actions of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, make it clear that he has neither respect nor patience for our democratic process in the American church. To this end, he proposes a curial model for the Anglican Communion which will place The Episcopal Church under the control, however indirectly, of bodies outside our provincial polity and essentially hostile to that polity. To opt for such a curial – or, as the Archbishop would have it, “covenantal” model – would be a betrayal of The Episcopal Church and those for whom you are accountable and to whom you are accountable.
Let me explain what I mean by this accountability. We are all – by choice – members of a church that operates on a hierarchical model. To this end, it is recognized that a bishop has a particular charism and a mandate to leadership. Without this realization, we would simply be one among many republican representative models readily available in the secular world. We accept that Grace is given in an outpouring to allow this leadership function. However, this is not leadership as is envisioned in the entirely authoritarian structure of the Middle Ages, nor that provided by the models of, say, the Church of England, in which a higher political authority is entirely responsible for the appointment of such a figure. The model envisioned in The Episcopal Church and set forth clearly in the ordination service, is rather one of a leader elevated from among the people, set apart, but not above. The ordination service reiterates this in the use of expressions such as “fellow presbyters,” “your people,” and, even asking the congregation “Is it your will that we ordain . . . ?” The bishop is a leader, but in the sense of a sibling, not a parent, understood to be equally fallible and equally in need of seeking counsel, and is enjoined to seek counsel from his/her “fellow presbyters” – priests, and all are, by virtue of baptism, called to the royal priesthood. In short, this form of episcopacy is not the mere managerial model offered by other churches, but a pastoral position which requires mutual accountability and humility – a reciprocity that requires both bishop and people – a people sanctified in baptism as priests themselves - recognize their interdependence, mutual accountability and mutual fallibility, and seek one another’s counsel.
The “covenantal” model that we are seeing is anathema to this very understanding! A primatial council, with the authority to set the bar of acceptability, which requires episcopal councils to decide membership is necessarily exclusive of the laity, priesthood, and diaconate, and, as such, hostile toward our polity and our charism. If you hand off this power to direct our church to a council of those disinterested and incapable of making truly pastoral decisions, you will, in your quest for unity, sacrifice The Episcopal Church, your diocese, the very people who trusted and elevated you. You will have sold your ecclesial heritage for a mess of pottage. Even were you to lose but a handful of individuals from TEC, and, quite possibly, from the very Church of Christ itself, that will be the breaking of The Episcopal Church. As it is, you surely realize that you will lose far more than that handful, and will inevitably drive a wedge between you and the very people of The Episcopal Church. The question is a painful one for you, and I regret you have to ask it, but, simply put, will you serve the idea of the Anglican Communion, or will you serve the people to whom you vowed service, those who trusted you to lead and, more, to help them?
This Lambeth Conference has also made clear to us something which is painful to say, perhaps dangerous to say, but which must be said, clearly, lovingly, and with the voice of prophetic witness: At this conference, you have grievously wounded and failed those who were entrusted to you.
You were called, in your ordination, to “. . boldly proclaim and interpret the Gospel of Christ, enlightening minds and stirring up the conscience of your people . . .” In what way can you be said to have boldly given forth the Good News as received and interpreted by you, or The Episcopal Church, at this conference by acting the hangdog over our desire for justice and inclusion? When you left your brother bishop, Gene Robinson, outside the gates, you left out, not just gays and lesbians, but the very church you represented – all of your brothers and sisters. When you sat in silence as our vision and our understanding was reviled and misrepresented, even by the Archbishop of Canterbury himself, do you not realize that your bloodless and passionless regard for your people deprived you of the right to claim prophetic or apostolic authority? In what way did you “support all baptized people in their gifts and ministries” by downplaying the works and gifts of others, the zeal and compassion shown by those entrusted to you? How were you “merciful to all, show[ing] compassion to the poor and strangers, and defend[ing] those who have no helper” by offering the sacrifice of the marginalized in secret counsel? Your desire – however earnest and well-intentioned – of cutting off the laity, priesthood and diaconate from your deliberations and discussions were, in the end, disastrous. It allowed the media to run wild, it generated “rumors of war” that would have been humorous, were it not that each and every one has left a scar or open wound on a soul somewhere.
This is how the current situation appears to us, and, frankly, you show no signs of confiding further in us, nor of seeking counsel from us. So, the question is now how – or if – you will be faithful to your vows as bishops in this, The Episcopal Church.
I – we – thank you for your time and your consideration. Keep in mind that these things are written from wounded and yearning hearts which love you, oh, so dearly, and which wait to see if they are a part of their own church, or merely unnoticed grist in the ecclesial mill.
Your response will ring through generations to come.
Yours In Christ,
Mark ******(personal info removed on advice)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)