There have been all sorts of developments in Anglicanland of late. Yet today, all of them seem to pale in importance.
We were scheduled to do two baptisms on Easter Day. Now it will only be one. The other child died suddenly yesterday afternoon.
The mother is blaming herself, wondering what could she have done differently. This is natural, I suspect, but ultimately it was not her fault.
The funeral is scheduled for Friday. As a community, we will have to acknowledge a tragedy that is, for most of us, incomprehensible. Yet at the same time, we must proclaim the resurrection hope.
In the midst of this, international machinations to split the Anglican Communion seem like a tawdry sideshow.
Pray for little Xavier and his parents.
And if anyone more experienced in this particular sort of funeral has any suggestions, please feel free to comment.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Friday, February 8, 2008
The Triumph of Law over Grace
The Covenant Design Group has offered up a new draft for a proposed Anglican Covenant - the St. Andrew's Draft. You can find the Anglican Communion Office news release here. The release, in turn, links to the rest of the draft, including the appendix, as well as to the first or Nassau Draft.
The St. Andrew's Draft is better than the Nassau Draft - in much the same way that being punched in the stomach is better than being punched in the testicles. The pain is a little less acute, but you still come away feeling violated.
The new draft does pay lip service to some of the objections that had been raised. It acknowledges that some people apart from bishops have a role in the governance of the church - mostly as a hypothetical construct. It doesn't assign all juridical authority to the Primate's Meeting - but the Primates Meeting would still have the authority to act against Provinces that actually exercised their autonomy.
There are those who believe that the concept of an Anglican Covenant is a good one - that an Anglican Covenant could be a means to define and refine our understanding of Anglican identity. I don't agree with those folk that such a thing is either necessary or helpful. But I will agree that, conceptually, an Anglican Covenant is not necessarily a destructive idea per se.
But neither the Nassau Draft nor the St. Andrew's Draft are about expressing our Anglican identity. This Covenant is about providing a club with which to beat "difficult" Provinces into submission. This Covenant is about overthrowing fundamental Anglican ideals and subjecting every Anglican Province to the governance of foreign prelates.
The St. Andrew's Draft even provides a clearly defined bureaucratic structure to enforce it's draconian vision for an Anglican Communion where freedom is abolished, grace abrogated and Calvinist legalism imposed on all and sundry.
This Covenant represents the triumph of law over grace. It overthrows Anglican identity. It abolishes the Gospel. It establishes for evermore a quasi-curial dictatorship. It destroys synodical government and replaces it with government by bullies (phoberistocracy?).
This isn't the first time that would-be Puritans have tried to establish international juridical structures to control the Communion. The first several Lambeth conferences shot down proposals for precisely these kinds of ecclesiastical kangaroo courts.
I have never been a supporter of this Anglican Covenant nonsense. If we can meet together, no Covenant is required. If we cannot meet, no Covenant will suffice. Even the best designed Covenant would be unhelpful at least and irrelevant at best.
But this is not a well designed Covenant. It is a recipe for power-mad schemers to destroy the very essence of Anglican polity while imposing a legalistic and intolerant authoritarianism.
There is a Canadian joke that our country was intended to have British government, French cuisine and American know-how. Instead we got French government, American cuisine and British know-how.
Anglicanism, historically, has been the via media between the extremes of Rome and Geneva - taking the best of each.
In the St. Andrew's draft, we have opted instead the worst.
The St. Andrew's Draft is better than the Nassau Draft - in much the same way that being punched in the stomach is better than being punched in the testicles. The pain is a little less acute, but you still come away feeling violated.
The new draft does pay lip service to some of the objections that had been raised. It acknowledges that some people apart from bishops have a role in the governance of the church - mostly as a hypothetical construct. It doesn't assign all juridical authority to the Primate's Meeting - but the Primates Meeting would still have the authority to act against Provinces that actually exercised their autonomy.
There are those who believe that the concept of an Anglican Covenant is a good one - that an Anglican Covenant could be a means to define and refine our understanding of Anglican identity. I don't agree with those folk that such a thing is either necessary or helpful. But I will agree that, conceptually, an Anglican Covenant is not necessarily a destructive idea per se.
But neither the Nassau Draft nor the St. Andrew's Draft are about expressing our Anglican identity. This Covenant is about providing a club with which to beat "difficult" Provinces into submission. This Covenant is about overthrowing fundamental Anglican ideals and subjecting every Anglican Province to the governance of foreign prelates.
The St. Andrew's Draft even provides a clearly defined bureaucratic structure to enforce it's draconian vision for an Anglican Communion where freedom is abolished, grace abrogated and Calvinist legalism imposed on all and sundry.
This Covenant represents the triumph of law over grace. It overthrows Anglican identity. It abolishes the Gospel. It establishes for evermore a quasi-curial dictatorship. It destroys synodical government and replaces it with government by bullies (phoberistocracy?).
This isn't the first time that would-be Puritans have tried to establish international juridical structures to control the Communion. The first several Lambeth conferences shot down proposals for precisely these kinds of ecclesiastical kangaroo courts.
I have never been a supporter of this Anglican Covenant nonsense. If we can meet together, no Covenant is required. If we cannot meet, no Covenant will suffice. Even the best designed Covenant would be unhelpful at least and irrelevant at best.
But this is not a well designed Covenant. It is a recipe for power-mad schemers to destroy the very essence of Anglican polity while imposing a legalistic and intolerant authoritarianism.
There is a Canadian joke that our country was intended to have British government, French cuisine and American know-how. Instead we got French government, American cuisine and British know-how.
Anglicanism, historically, has been the via media between the extremes of Rome and Geneva - taking the best of each.
In the St. Andrew's draft, we have opted instead the worst.
Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Absolutism
By definition, extremists are extreme.
By nature, they are intolerant and unforgiving.
Following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the newly installed soviets were as anxious to root out the mensheviks as they were to nab the bourgeoisie and the aristocrats. During the internecine religious wars in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries, various shades of reformers spent as much time condemning each other as they did condemning the failings and abuses of Rome.
Today, we see vast swathes of conservative pundits condemning John McCain for being insufficiently conservative, and we see the US National Organization of Women accusing progressives of "betrayal" if they choose Obama over Clinton. (To date, we have largely been spared the accusation of racism against progressives who choose the opposite - but it's still a long way 'til the conventions.)
Over the past few weeks, we have seen the same tendency amongst our own Anglican extremists.
On December 26, the "conservative" element, led by +Akinola of Nigeria and +Jenson of Sydney announced the "Global Anglican Future Conference," to be held in Jerusalem a few weeks prior to Lambeth. For the purposes of this post, we can leave aside the issue of whether or not GAFCON (no, really, that's their own acronym) is part of a deliberate scheme to undermine the Archbishop of Canterbury, invalidate Lambeth and finalize the destruction of the Anglican Communion as we know it.
Since that announcement, a number of conservatives have been critical of the GAFCON initiative for a variety of reasons. Three of the most notable have been Bishop Suheil Dawani, the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem; Dr. Michael Poon, a theologian much involved in the Global South Anglican movement; and Bishop Tom Wright of Durham in the Church of England.
As a result, all three of these conservative leaders have been pilloried on the "conservative" Anglican blogosphere.
By nature, they are intolerant and unforgiving.
Following the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917, the newly installed soviets were as anxious to root out the mensheviks as they were to nab the bourgeoisie and the aristocrats. During the internecine religious wars in Europe during the 16th and 17th centuries, various shades of reformers spent as much time condemning each other as they did condemning the failings and abuses of Rome.
Today, we see vast swathes of conservative pundits condemning John McCain for being insufficiently conservative, and we see the US National Organization of Women accusing progressives of "betrayal" if they choose Obama over Clinton. (To date, we have largely been spared the accusation of racism against progressives who choose the opposite - but it's still a long way 'til the conventions.)
Over the past few weeks, we have seen the same tendency amongst our own Anglican extremists.
On December 26, the "conservative" element, led by +Akinola of Nigeria and +Jenson of Sydney announced the "Global Anglican Future Conference," to be held in Jerusalem a few weeks prior to Lambeth. For the purposes of this post, we can leave aside the issue of whether or not GAFCON (no, really, that's their own acronym) is part of a deliberate scheme to undermine the Archbishop of Canterbury, invalidate Lambeth and finalize the destruction of the Anglican Communion as we know it.
Since that announcement, a number of conservatives have been critical of the GAFCON initiative for a variety of reasons. Three of the most notable have been Bishop Suheil Dawani, the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem; Dr. Michael Poon, a theologian much involved in the Global South Anglican movement; and Bishop Tom Wright of Durham in the Church of England.
As a result, all three of these conservative leaders have been pilloried on the "conservative" Anglican blogosphere.
- Tom Wright has been accused of racism.
- Dr. Poon received a pi$$y letter from "a Global South primate" telling he had no business asking questions and, when he revealed this online, was accused of lying.
- Bishop Dawani, whose principal concern seemed to be that holding the Conference in his diocese would create a number of serious religious problems, was written off as an irrelevance - and then accused of objecting only because of financial support his diocese had received from the Episcopal Church in the US.
So, Bishop Tom Wright is a racist, Dr. Michael Poon is a liar and Bishop Suheil Dawani has been bought.
The "conservatives" have served up as much vitriol against these three people - who actually AGREE with them on the underlying issue - as they usually reserve for New Hampshire Bishop Gene Robinson and US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori.
The underlying pathology here, it seems to me, is absolutism. If one does not toe the line absolutely, if one does not submit to every shibboleth, if one does not follow orders without question, then one is surely an enemy. It takes "who is not with me is against me" to an absurd level.
At a certain level, I am coming to thankful for who has emerged as the leadership of the "conservative" faction. If they aren't bright enough to realize that turning on their friends makes them weaker, not stronger, then they aren't bright enough to destroy the Anglican Communion.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
How Guests Behave
In January of 1692, a regiment of Campbells received the hospitality of MacDonald of Glencoe. After several days as guests, and acting on a royal warrant, the Campbells arose in the earlier morning and undertook to slaughter all the MacDonald men they could find.
More than 300 years later, the story of the Massacre of Glencoe continues to resonate. Even in those violent times, even among the partisans of the 1688 revolution, the perfidious actions of Campbell of Glenlyon were seen as an appalling violation of the laws of hospitality. You just don't rise up in the morning and kill your host. It's not on.
Certainly I'd be put out if my guests rose up in the morning to kill me.
I'd even be annoyed if they just stole my stuff.
Heck, grumpy old curmudgeon that I am, I'd even be ticked if all they did was trample my xeriscaped front yard.
We have certain expectations of how guests ought to behave. And those expectations apply especially to uninvited guests.
If you invite me to your house, I don't necessarily guarantee that I'll be the best guest you've ever had. But I absolutely promise not to trample your lawn, snoop through your medicine chest, steal your possessions, be reckless with your expensive crystal. I certainly won't rise up in the morning to kill you.
Perhaps most importantly, if you tell me that now isn't a good time to visit, I promise to leave. Or if you call me in advance to tell me, I'll change my plans to leave you undisturbed.
That's because I know how a guest behaves.
The Archbishop of Abuja, apparently, does not.
Last month, Peter Akinola and all the usual suspects announced a conference for the "orthodox" to be held in Jerusalem in advance of the Lambeth Conference.
Lacking even the basic idea of how to behave in public, it never actually occurred to any of them to call the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem to see what he thought of the idea.
It's not like Bishop Dawani of Jerusalem is one of those evil hell-bound liberals (tm) that Peter Akinola and his Manichaean cum Docetist friends believe they should treat rudely. Dawani's views on "the" issue are certainly closer to Peter Akinola's than to mine.
But Peter Akinola has no manners. Oh sure, there was the proforma letter mailed on Christmas Eve, a full two days before the faux-orthodox made their big announcement. The kindest interpretation one can put to Akinola's behaviour is that he was too stupid to realize that a letter mailed internationally to Jerusalem over Christmas would take more than two days to arrive.
I don't think Akinola is stupid.
Peter Akinola simply doesn't give a rat's backside what Bishop Dawani thinks.
Akinola's arrogance, once again, had led him to overplay his hand. As the backlash to the conference (aptly named GafCon) grew, he was forced to make some concession to Bishop Dawani's concerns.
The minutes of Peter Akinola's meeting with Suheil Dawani make for interesting reading.
I don't have much use for Archbishop Jenson of Sydney either, but Jensen at least manages to appear like something less than an utter prat. He gives the appearance of actually taking Dawani's concerns seriously.
Akinola, on the other hand, is true to form. He dismisses Dawani's concerns as being fanciful and of no import. He implies that Dawani's failure to fall into step constitutes some infringement on the freedom of the "orthodox." He dissembles (at least) about the agenda of the conference and then, in a frenzy of Orwellian Newspeak, denies the conference is a conference at all.
As an Anglican who believes the historic strength of our Communion has been its capacity to accept internal disagreement, I find the attempts to impose an extreme Calvinist fundamentalism to be disturbing, distasteful and frankly dishonest.
But then I consider the arrogant buster of the Primate of Nigeria, and I consider myself blessed in my opponents.
As Akinola's arrogance drives away his natural allies, I wonder what the faux-orthodox might have accomplished with effective leadership.
More than 300 years later, the story of the Massacre of Glencoe continues to resonate. Even in those violent times, even among the partisans of the 1688 revolution, the perfidious actions of Campbell of Glenlyon were seen as an appalling violation of the laws of hospitality. You just don't rise up in the morning and kill your host. It's not on.
Certainly I'd be put out if my guests rose up in the morning to kill me.
I'd even be annoyed if they just stole my stuff.
Heck, grumpy old curmudgeon that I am, I'd even be ticked if all they did was trample my xeriscaped front yard.
We have certain expectations of how guests ought to behave. And those expectations apply especially to uninvited guests.
If you invite me to your house, I don't necessarily guarantee that I'll be the best guest you've ever had. But I absolutely promise not to trample your lawn, snoop through your medicine chest, steal your possessions, be reckless with your expensive crystal. I certainly won't rise up in the morning to kill you.
Perhaps most importantly, if you tell me that now isn't a good time to visit, I promise to leave. Or if you call me in advance to tell me, I'll change my plans to leave you undisturbed.
That's because I know how a guest behaves.
The Archbishop of Abuja, apparently, does not.
Last month, Peter Akinola and all the usual suspects announced a conference for the "orthodox" to be held in Jerusalem in advance of the Lambeth Conference.
Lacking even the basic idea of how to behave in public, it never actually occurred to any of them to call the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem to see what he thought of the idea.
It's not like Bishop Dawani of Jerusalem is one of those evil hell-bound liberals (tm) that Peter Akinola and his Manichaean cum Docetist friends believe they should treat rudely. Dawani's views on "the" issue are certainly closer to Peter Akinola's than to mine.
But Peter Akinola has no manners. Oh sure, there was the proforma letter mailed on Christmas Eve, a full two days before the faux-orthodox made their big announcement. The kindest interpretation one can put to Akinola's behaviour is that he was too stupid to realize that a letter mailed internationally to Jerusalem over Christmas would take more than two days to arrive.
I don't think Akinola is stupid.
Peter Akinola simply doesn't give a rat's backside what Bishop Dawani thinks.
Akinola's arrogance, once again, had led him to overplay his hand. As the backlash to the conference (aptly named GafCon) grew, he was forced to make some concession to Bishop Dawani's concerns.
The minutes of Peter Akinola's meeting with Suheil Dawani make for interesting reading.
I don't have much use for Archbishop Jenson of Sydney either, but Jensen at least manages to appear like something less than an utter prat. He gives the appearance of actually taking Dawani's concerns seriously.
Akinola, on the other hand, is true to form. He dismisses Dawani's concerns as being fanciful and of no import. He implies that Dawani's failure to fall into step constitutes some infringement on the freedom of the "orthodox." He dissembles (at least) about the agenda of the conference and then, in a frenzy of Orwellian Newspeak, denies the conference is a conference at all.
As an Anglican who believes the historic strength of our Communion has been its capacity to accept internal disagreement, I find the attempts to impose an extreme Calvinist fundamentalism to be disturbing, distasteful and frankly dishonest.
But then I consider the arrogant buster of the Primate of Nigeria, and I consider myself blessed in my opponents.
As Akinola's arrogance drives away his natural allies, I wonder what the faux-orthodox might have accomplished with effective leadership.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Tidbits
Two interesting tidbits from the Anglican blogosphere.
First of all, the American Presiding Bishop has inhibited the Rt. Rev's John David Schofield. John David was the Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin. About a month ago, he and his synod declared that Fresno, California and the surrounding counties were now part of South America, and he now styles himself the Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin.
Second, with thanks to Mad Priest and the Times of London. Apparently a motion has been tabled in the British House of Commons calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England. It is motion #666.
My darling wife and I depart in a few hours for a winter holiday. Anyone know a decent church in Los Angeles close to the Westin Long Beach?
First of all, the American Presiding Bishop has inhibited the Rt. Rev's John David Schofield. John David was the Episcopal Bishop of San Joaquin. About a month ago, he and his synod declared that Fresno, California and the surrounding counties were now part of South America, and he now styles himself the Anglican Bishop of San Joaquin.
Second, with thanks to Mad Priest and the Times of London. Apparently a motion has been tabled in the British House of Commons calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England. It is motion #666.
My darling wife and I depart in a few hours for a winter holiday. Anyone know a decent church in Los Angeles close to the Westin Long Beach?
Sunday, January 6, 2008
Jurgen Moltman?
| I'm not quite sure what to make of it. I took the What Theologian Are You? quiz, and here were my results. I don't know much about Jurgen Moltmann, but a quick read on Wikipedia suggests to me I'm okay with it. I'm a bit more distressed that I scored so high of John Calvin and so low on both Anselm and Augustine. I must go ponder this. ___________________________________________________ Which theologian are you? | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| You scored as a Jürgen Moltmann | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| The problem of evil is central to your thought, and only a crucified God can show that God is not indifferent to human suffering. Christian discipleship means identifying with suffering but also anticipating the new creation of all things that God will bring about. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Tuesday, January 1, 2008
Archbishop of Canterbury's New Year's Message
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has released a New Year's message in both text and video formats.
Techno-amateur I am, I don't know how to embed the YouTube video here, but it is at the bottom of the text page.
I particularly like the emphasis on God's faithfulness in relationships.
Perhaps that is why his Church has always viewed schism as a bad thing.
Techno-amateur I am, I don't know how to embed the YouTube video here, but it is at the bottom of the text page.
I particularly like the emphasis on God's faithfulness in relationships.
Perhaps that is why his Church has always viewed schism as a bad thing.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)