Perhaps I should declare myself a Brazilian

Should the current bizarre geography of the Anglican Communion continue unchecked - what with Fresno, California and bits of the BC lower mainland becoming part of Argentina, bits of Virginia proclaiming themselves to be in Nigeria and a number of suburbs outside Chicago purporting to be in Rwanda - I may have to decide where my little bit of Regina resides.

If I weren't such a geographical fundamentalist, I just might have to decide that my house in southern Saskatchewan was part of Brazil.

The Brazilian House of Bishops have just issued a pastoral letter about the oddball proposal for an Anglican Covenant. Well, it reads like a pastoral letter. It's all very polite and everything. And it does call itself a pastoral letter.

But a better description might be that it is a ruthless deconstruction of the fatuous reasoning which underlies the proposed Covenant.

Do read the whole thing. But here are some of my favourite bits.

The Covenant continues to be a mistaken proposal for the resolution of conflicts through the creation of curial instances absolutely alien to our ethos.

. . .

Insisting on a formal and juridical Covenant, with the logic of discipline and exercise of power, means . . . returning to the days of Modernity, with its Confessions, Covenants, Diets and other rational instruments of theological consensus.

. . .

[T]he richness of our cultural and hermeneutical diversity . . . always creates the challenge of positive tension for us, which [is] experienced in the exercise of dispersed and shared authority. We can not, however, allow it to be replaced by a legal, circumstantial instrument of political control.

. . .

[T]he Covenant is not an essential element to maintain or strengthen our Communion; on the contrary, it risks defacing it.

Further to this wonderful news, I've also had the pleasure of listening to Canon Jenny Plane Te Paa of New Zealand. Canon Plane Te Paa was a member of the commission which originally proposed an Anglican Covenant as a means out of our current situation. In her presentation (available in .pdf format here, and in .mp3 here), she explains why she has changed her mind and now opposes a Covenant.

What a glorious day to be an Anglican. Plus, if I declare myself part of Brazil, my heating bill should go down.

Not the End of Anglicanism After All

The Archbishop of Canterbury has issued a video statement outlining his expectations of the Lambeth Conference. No sign of Tom Wright's predicted disinvitation to the Covenant-skeptics.

Here is the video.



The text of the statement is here.

Of course, there could still be letters in the mail. But either Rowan has backed away from an attempt to manipulate the outcomes, or possibly Tom Wright was talking through his mitre.

Either way, the proposed Anglican Covenant will be a major topic at the meeting - and Rowan seems to be as convinced as ever that this triumph of law over grace is the answer to the Communion's problems.

There was a conference about the Anglican Covenant held in New York earlier this month. It included a number of speakers, including the hopelessly compromised Chair of the Covenant Design Group. Both Covenant-philes and Covenant-skeptics attended and presented. Thinking Anglicans has good coverage and a full set of links to some of the major lectures.

Finally, there has been another boycott Lambeth statement from the so-called Global South. You can find coverage at Thinking Anglicans. Kenyan Bishop Eliud Wabukala includes some simply bizarre remarks about refusing to go to a place where men marry men. He also effectively admits that, while they are imposing themselves on the Bishop in Jerusalem, the GAFCON bishops are likely to consider separating from the Anglican Communion. This rare clarity is helpful.

For the record, I could have linked directly to the site where Bishop Wabukala's comments were originally posted. I have decided not to.

I have several conservative sites included in my links on the right. These are sites which, as far as I have been able to see, there is an attempt to discuss issues in a way that is honest and respectful.

There are, however, sites where such is not the norm. There are sites where anyone who disagrees with the anti-gay party line is subjected to both slander and abuse. (And yes, there are liberals sites that are equally unfair to conservatives.)

In my experience, although Anglican Mainstream occasionally carries articles and links that are useful, the site commentary - and in particular the comments section - is a bilious concoction of slander and abuse. I will not link to it.

The End of Anglicanism

The Bishop of Durham has suggested that the Archbishop of Canterbury will soon be sending (or has already sent) letters to the bishops of the Anglican Communion essentially telling them that, if they are not prepared to sign off on having an Anglican Covenant, they had best not bother coming to the Lambeth Conference this summer.

It's not entirely clear if +Durham is correct or if he's talking through his mitre. One Lambeth spokesthingee seems to say there will be letters, another says not.

So, there may be letters coming and they may say something about the acceptance of an Anglican Covenant being a precondition for attending Lambeth 08.

Well, IF there are letters and IF they say that Covenant-skeptics should stay away, then Rowan Williams will be the most significant Archbishop of Canterbury since Tom Cranmer stuck his hand in a fire. +Rowan would be the Archbishop that tried to abolish Anglicanism.

Some background may be required.

There is, as you may have heard, a dispute about what the Church's attitude towards homosexuality ought to be. Some people are quite miffed about the whole issue. Some people refuse to participate in the eucharist if certain people from "the other side" are there.

A few years ago, a group of people from around the Communion were asked to ponder this problem. They produced a report which they released at a certain royal spot in the UK - hence, the Windsor Report.

The Windsor Report said a lot of stuff, but one of the things it said was that perhaps having an Anglican Covenant might be a way to get around all the present nastiness. They even included a rough draft of what such a Covenant might look like.

So another group of people were appointed to work on the next draft of an Anglican Covenant. They've since produced draft three. (Technically draft two since the rough draft included in the Windsor Report doesn't count.)

The confusing thing is, I don't see anyone anywhere but some hairy Welshman in London claiming that Anglicans are obliged to agree that an Anglican Covenant is a good idea. It was a suggestion from a committee. It didn't come down off a mountain carved in stone.

Personally, I think an Anglican Covenant is a daft idea. If Anglicans can meet together, no Covenant is necessary. If Anglicans cannot meet, no Covenant will suffice to heal the breach.

But it appears that +Rowan is determined that this recommendation from a committee is now more central to Christian faith and to Anglican identity than any of the four points of the Chicago - Lambeth quadrilateral.

So, how did (or could) this come to pass?

Well, there really is only one way.

+Rowan would have to claim for himself powers roughly equivalent to those a certain Bishop in central Italy claims for himself.

Insisting on prior agreement to the Covenant agenda is nothing less than the declaration that Anglicanism is dead, and that the generous via media has been replaced by a new papalism - but with a Welsh pope based in London rather than a German one based in Rome.

Sorry, Rowan, but I am an Anglican. I am not, nor do I wish to be, a pale and anemic imitation Roman Catholic. If I wanted papal and curial government in the Church, I'd have done the decent thing and swum the Tiber.


Ironically, the last people to try to impose a Covenant on Anglicans were a bunch of Presbyterians - the same bunch that martyred +Rowan's predecessor +William Laud.

Especially ironic: that first Covenant was, to small degree, about abolishing bishops.

The brilliant American blogger priest Mark Harris has some suggestions about what Anglican bishops might do if they get one of these letters - if such letters are sent and if they say such foolish things.


Unfortunately, he forgot to include the round file.

Mission or Maintenance

In the interests of further ecumenical dialogue among Anglicans, let me post you a link from a fairly conservative, pro-Network website.

Fr. Joe Walker blogs at Felix Hominum. He recently linked to an article he wrote in the conservative Anglican Planet site.

Now, me pointing you to Anglican Planet is a bit like Jack Layton pointing you to the National Post. (For American readers, try Dennis Kucinich directing you to Fox News. In the UK, try Ken Livingston and the Times of London.)

But Joe's article is just so darned good that I have to link you to it.

It is a reflection on a recent letter in Canada's Anglican Journal regarding a priest who told his parish that they weren't "replacing themselves."

Let me just quote a small part of Joe's article. Then you should go read it for yourselves. And then you should check out his blog entry, where there is further discussion.

So who is “responsible” for those who are not in church? Plainly speaking, it is you and I. We are responsible. Perhaps it would help if we reframe the language of the question into something, well, something more "Gospelesque." To suggest that members need to “replace themselves” is, as the writer of the letter points out, the wrong approach. It hints that the purpose of the church is to perpetuate itself as an institution. Rather, we are called joyfully to help others into a reconciling relationship with God through Christ, and then to encourage one another to live out a life in the Spirit.

"How is it now their job to make sure there are others coming up to replace them?" It is never our job merely to replace ourselves (that criticism is correct), but it has always been our job to make disciples. “Go therefore into all the world, and make disciples.” This is not simply the call of the Apostles, but is part of the vocation of ministry for all the baptized. It is part of every Christian's call to present the Gospel to those who are unaware of Christ. One never retires from the Great Commission, just as one never retires from the Great Commandment. Sharing the joy of Christ has no age barriers.

Thanks, Joe.

The gift of Communion

There is much distress in Anglicanland as we approach the 2008 Lambeth Conference.

The "conservative" faction are upset that the Communion has not exercised non-existent powers to "discipline" the American and Canadian churches. As a result, the leading "conservatives" are boycotting the conference. Instead of coming, they will rudely impose themselves upon the unwilling hospitality of the Anglican Bishop in Jerusalem at GAFCON.

Certain "liberals" are wishing an end to the Communion and saying that no American bishop should attend Lambeth because the Bishop of New Hampshire has not been invited.

In between, 99% of the world's Anglicans wish that the childish troublemakers on either side would simply be quiet.

Authentic conservatives are planning to attend Lambeth despite their objections to certain North American developments.

Authentic liberals are following Bishop Robinson's sage advice:

Some of you have indicated that if I am not invited, you won't go either. I want to say loud and clear - you must go. You must find your voice. And somehow you have to find my voice and the voices of all the gay and lesbian people in your diocese who, for now, don't have a voice in this setting. I'd much rather be talked to than talked about. But you must go and tell the stories of your people, faithful members of your flock who happen to be lesbian and gay.

I've spent some significant portion of my life involved in secular politics at a variety of levels. One of the important things I've learned is that decisions are made by those who turn up. Boycotting a meeting, while giving the illusion of dignified satisfaction, is virtually always the stupidest possible choice.

In that same speech, Bishop Robinson said, "the worst sin is leaving the table."

He's right. Leaving the table is schism.

It is ironic, of course, that those who thought to have others expelled from the Anglican Communion are now in the process of expelling themselves. GAFCON represents surrender and retreat for the most extreme of the "conservatives." GAFCON is the "conservative" faction declaring victory when they have not won. All they are missing is the flight suit and the aircraft carrier.

Part of me (and not the nicest part of me) is tempted to say to Archbishops Akinola, Orombi and Jensen, Presiding Bishop Venables and the rest of the schismatics, "here's your mitre, what's your hurry?"

The better part of me wants them to repent of schism, and will seek to leave the door open for their eventual return.

In the meantime, I believe in the Anglican Communion. I believe that the place to hash out our differences is the Anglican Communion. I believe the place for us to advocate and argue is the Anglican Communion. I believe the place for us to fight and to yell and to get royally pi$$ed is the Anglican Communion.

I commend to my few readers the new Gift of Communion website. An initiative of Inclusive Church, the site upholds a traditional Anglican comprehensiveness.

As Christians, we believe that all people have been made in the image of God. We believe that God loves each and every person with an infinite, never-ending, unconditional love.

As members of the body of Christ, we acknowledge each person’s unique and valuable contribution as we seek together to build up that body in love.

As members of the Anglican Communion, we celebrate the gift of our diversity and are committed to being a broad Church that accepts and welcomes difference. We acknowledge our need of God's forgiveness for the sins and failings which harm our shared witness in the world. We believe our unity is rooted in our baptism in Christ, and we will seek to maintain that unity through the grace of the Holy Spirit who lives and works in each one of us.

The backers of this initiative are very deliberately seeking the support of parish councils and vestries - and NOT the endorsement of individuals.

If you feel you can support this statement, please refer the matter to your local parish council or vestry.

And now, a mere one-seventh of the way through the Feast of Feasts, let us return to the important business of proclaiming the risen Lord.

Alleluia! Christ is risen!

Alleluia! Christ is Risen!

The Lord is risen indeed! Alleluia!

Ever since one particular Easter Vigil some years ago - when our son was being confirmed - my dear wife has associated the Easter Vigil with this Mr. Bean sketch from Rowan Atkinson.



The sketch includes, in addition to the always wonderful Atkinson, the marvellous English comic actor Richard Briers, who among other film and television credits, played the Rev'd Philip Lambe in the series All in Good Faith.

It's the Beanian "Alleluia" in Lasst uns erfreuen that moves my sweetheart to gales of laughter - and causes her to associate the sketch with the Easter Vigil.

Five young people from the parish were confirmed this evening - all of them quite fetching in their "We're on a mission from God" bunnyhugs.



The bunnyhugs (that's what we call them around here) are via Sarah Laughed and Cafe Press. The front depicts Abraham and Sarah entertaining angels unawares - except that the angels are all decked out in Blues Brothers style hats and sunglasses. On the back we find the Anglican Communion's Five Marks of Mission.

Our five young confirmands are, like Jake and Elwood Blues, "on a mission from God." They have been sent into the world - along with the rest of us - to proclaim the Good News of the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Christos Voskres!

"The worst sin is leaving the table."

Last week, Lambeth Palace made it official: The Archbishop of Canterbury refuses to invite the canonical Bishop of New Hampshire to the 2008 Lambeth Conference.

I think I understand +Rowan's reasoning, and I suppose I don't really see how he could have given in on that point without adding to his already well-established (though not entirely deserved) reputation as a spineless blunderer.

That said, the suggestion that Gene Robinson should set up shop in the Marketplace attached to the conference went well beyond appalling stupid. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more offensive suggestion. "We won't let you pray with us, but we can put you on display in a circus tent if you like."

Frankly, Gene Robinson has responded with far more grace than I would have. His comments at a meeting of the American House of Bishops can be found in their entirety here.

There is one passage in particular that stands out to me - the passage in which Bishop Robinson describes why he keeps putting up with the pain.

I want to acknowledge that I am not the first or last person to be in pain at a House of Bishops meeting. My own pain was sufficient enough that for 36 hours I felt the compelling urge to run, to flee. My inspiration for staying came from my conservative brothers in this house. I have seen John Howe and Ed Salmon and others show up for years when there was a lot of pain for them. I see Bill Love and Mark Lawrence, and I know it is a very difficult thing for them to be here right now. For me, the worst sin is leaving the table. And that is what I was on the verge of doing. But, largely because of you, I stayed. Thank you for that.

If you aren't a close follower of the current internecine unpleasantness in Anglicanism, those four names might not mean anything to you. They are the names of four of the leading conservatives in the American House of Bishops. John Howe is the Bishop of Central Florida, Ed Salmon the retired Bishop of South Carolina, Bill Love the Bishop of Albany New York, Mark Lawrence the current Bishop of South Carolina.

I find Bishop Robinson's remarks, particularly this one section as remarkably graceful. He treats those on the other side of the current unpleasantness with decency, respect and even admiration. Contrast this with the way John Howe or conservative theologian Michael Poon are often treated in the "conservative" Anglican blogosphere when they dissent from certain extremist positions.

Fr. Dan Martins, who turns out to be a seminary classmate of my bishop, makes some remarkably insightful comments about how unhelpful the broad brush is as we approach these issues. I share one small excerpt, but the whole thing is worth a read.

Let's put the broad brushes away. Conservatives would do well to quit automatically unchurching anyone who holds "reappraiser" views, not just because it really pisses them off, but because it's just wrong to do. Somebody can hold a mistaken view on the sexuality questions without being lumped together with John Spong and Markus Borg--or Katharine Jefferts Schori, for that matter. Liberals would do well to quit assuming anyone who holds "reasserter" views does so out of either ignorance, selfishness, or mere power-hungry churlishness. A person can hold a traditional view of sexual morality without being lumped together with Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps.

Sadly for me, I had been part of the increasingly angry exchange in the comments section of an earlier post which led Fr. Dan to post this reflection. Ironically, my first comment had been to decry precisely that sort of broad brush - I objected to the suggestion that "my" side of the divide "loathed" Christianity. Unfortunately, I allowed myself to get drawn into an ongoing flame war. Mea culpa.

Of course, Gene Robinson has seen John Howe face to face - and Ed Salmon, and Bill Love, and Mark Lawrence. It is hard (though not impossible) to have a flame war with real people. It is really, really easy to have a flame war with a quasi-anonymous blog profiles.

This is why I object to the current strategy of the "conservatives" - hiving off bits of the Church to be out of communion with their neighbours and "canonically" attached to a like-minded prelate across the globe. Such an arrangement removes any necessity of engaging with my neighbour, of experiencing my neighbour's humanity, of understanding my neighbour as a child of God.