And now for something completely different

One of these is a muppet.

With thanks to Fr. David Heron.

Try connecting the d****d dots, George

There's been some discussion here and there on the blogosphere about which of the folk covering Lambeth are "reporters" and which are "shills" or "mouthpieces."

Thing is, there are a lot of people who are not objective reporters in any meaningful sense. They are reporting with a perspective.

In the PR biz, we generally call these people "commentators" rather than "reporters." The best and most ethical of them will admit to the distinction.

I'd call George Conger of Religious Intelligence a commentator. I don't know that he'd agree.

That said, while commentators are not bound by the same standards for balance, they are still bound by the requirement for fundamental honesty. A commentator may legitimately say that Stephane Dion's "Green Shift" plan is an empty shell that won't do any more for the environment than when he named his dog Kyoto. (I happen to agree with that.) A commentator may not legitimately say that Stephane Dion's plan is actually designed to aggravate greenhouse gasses and global warming.

So I was a little surprised by one of George Conger's recent articles.

George says that rumours of one Nigerian bishop defying the Nigerian boycott of Lambeth "have proven false."

Later in the article, he quotes Nigerian Primate Peter Akinola as saying: "any Nigerian who may have chosen to flout our provincial and collective decision will have to answer to the general synod. It as simple as that."

Then he reports: "The Rt Rev Cyril Okorocha, Bishop of Owerri, Nigeria on July 19 faxed a letter to the conference saying he would like to attend, as he was visiting his son in Manchester."

Later still, he refers to a report in the Times of London. "After The Times reported that threats had been made against the wife of Bishop Okorocha, a ban on the names of bishops present [at Lambeth] was imposed."

Now, even a five year old knows how to play connect the dots.

But since George Conger seems to be less adept than the average five year old, I'll draw a metaphorical picture.

• +Cyril says he's coming to Lambeth.


• +Peter threatens that any Nigerian bishop attending Lambeth will be hauled up in front of the Nigerian General Synod.


• The Nigerian Synod is not known for defying the dictates of its Primate.


• There are unspecified threats by persons unknown against +Cyril's wife.


• +Cyril doesn't turn up at Lambeth.

I don't think that's a very fanciful presentation of the facts.

Actually, I think you'd have to be pretty dim to miss the connections.

But George either fails to see them - or deliberately ignores them.

Draw your own conclusions.

It's called fraud - and it's a criminal offence

The other day, the leaders of the GAFFEPRONE schism issued a poisoned pen letter attacking the Anglican Communion, the Lambeth Conference and the Archbishop of Canterbury.

In all that mudslinging, they did manage to get one thing right. They said that the St. Andrew's Draft of the Anglican Covenant was not acceptable.

Of course, they thought it wasn't acceptable because it didn't put them in charge of the Communion's membership list.

My reasons for objecting to the St. Andrew's Draft are quite the opposite. I think it goes too far in the direction of establishing an Anglican Inquisition in the persons of the Primates.

So, even what they got right they got wrong.

Oh, yeah. They got another thing wrong as well.

Their malevolent missive was issued in the name of seven Primates: Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Southern Cone (aka the usual suspects), Tanzania and West Africa.

Problem is, at least one of those Primates denies it. Greg Venables of the Southern Cone of America says that he was not consulted about the document and that he did not sign off on it.

Here's a link to the Church Times story: http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/blog_post.asp?id=60572

Four of the Primates (Nigeria, Rwanda, Uganda and Kenya) are among the Lambeth Refuseniks. The other three (notwithstanding the comment in the Church Times story) are at Lambeth with the vast majority of bishops of the Communion.

I am curious to know if Greg Venables was the only one of the seven to have his virtual signature metaphorically forged.

This isn't the first time that this crowd have issued documents claiming that various people had signed off, only to have several alleged signatories deny it. Apparently the tendency to schism has a parallel tendency to dishonesty.

Yes, dishonesty.

A lawyer who is very near and dear to me advises that appending a person's name to a document in this mannner constitutes a criminal offence known as fraud.

Voices of Witness: Africa

This link takes you to a page on the Integrity USA website where you can watch a video they have produced called Voices of Witness: Africa.

http://walkingwithintegrity.blogspot.com/2008/07/voices-of-witness-africa.html

Integrity, of course, is an organization which supported the full inclusion of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered persons in the life of the Church. They are not, by any means, neutral observers.

Voices of Witness: Africa allows a number of GLBT Africans to tell their stories. The run time is 18 minutes and change. (I can't figure out how one might embed the video - which may be due to operating from my brother-in-law's ancient eMac.)

Ruth Gledhill of the Times of London (no liberal activist she) has described the film as "an incredibly powerful and moving film." She also notes that "these people must be applauded for their bravery" given the legal consequences of being openly gay in many parts of Africa. Those penalties include up to 14 years in prison in Nigeria, and life imprisonment in Uganda. The Primate of Nigeria, the Most Rev'd Peter Akinola, has even been supporting legislation which would make it a criminal offence - punishible by five years in prison - to advocate on behalf of the rights of homosexuals. In other words, if the Primate of Nigeria were to get his way, I could be imprisoned for posting this.

Ruth has also done a video interview with film editor Katie Sherrod of Texas (whose blog, Desert's Child, can be foundd in my list of links), which concludes with short excerpt from the film.

(Normally I know how to embed a YouTube video. But like I say, unfamiliar technology. Let's see how it goes.)



Ruth's blog post can be found at: http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/07/lambeth-diary-g.html#more

Voices of Witness: Africa has, predictably, elicited a torrent of enraged comment from many "conservative" commentators. So angry are they that the voices of GBLT African Christians might be heardd that they have claimed that it is exploitive to let people tell their own stories. The illogic of hate is on full display in the comments section following Ruth's post. That stuff is mild compared to the toxic vitriol at some of the "conservative" Anglican sites - the ones I refuse to link to.

Malcolm+

A Climb-Down and an Apology

One of the pieces of advice I routinely hand out in my secular work is to ensure that what you say is accurate.

Another piece of advice is this - when you make a mistake, own up to it and apologize - quickly.

One of my frequent complaints about things from the more toxic sites of the "conservative" Anglican blogosphere is a tendency to misrepresent, and to allow misrepresentations to stand.

I hate it when I forget to take my own advice or act by my own standards.

In the past few days, I have made inaccurate statements about certain events in the Diocese of Saskatoon. In doing so, I have been unfair to the Bishop of Saskatoon.

Today, I'm trying to apply my second piece of advice.

The events in question refer to the resignation of a priest of that diocese. The Anglican Journal coverage of these events can be found here (http://www.anglicanjournal.com/sexuality-debate/055/article/saskatoon-priest-resigns-over-same-sex-issue/).

My mistake was three-fold.

First, the priest in question was not deposed. He was threatened with the suspension of his license, but pre-empted that by resigning.

Second, even had he been suspended, being suspended and being deposed are two very different things.

Third, the context in which I made my comment (as part of a list of penalties against liberal clerics) made it appear that the actions of the Bishop of Saskatoon were of the same order as the other penalties mentioned, and that it was based in a similar motivation, that is, an intolerance of dissenting opinions. I don't believe that to be true and did not intend to imply it was.

So, having come clean on my three-fold error, I will contact the Bishop of Saskatoon directly with my apology. I will also go to the site where I made these comments and refer them to this correction and apology.

The larger context of my comments was a reference to the threat of sanctions against the one Nigerian bishop who registered for the Lambeth Conference and has since headed home. I was trying to contrast the real penalties that have been levied against dissenters with the constant "conservative" complaint of "persecution" by liberal bishops.

In my experience, I have yet to see a case of sanctions against a conservative or "conservative" priest which did not follow directly on some non-canonical action, such as refusing their bishop entry to their parish or declaring themselves to be out of communion with their bishop or, in one case, serious allegations of financial impropriety which the priest refused to answer.

Yet we have seen real sanctions imposed by such "conservatives" against dissenters, including the threatened sanctions against Bishop Okorocha of Nigeria, the deposition of a supposedly "pro-gay" bishop by the Primate of Uganda and the refusal of the Province of Central Africa to ratify an episcopal election because the candidate once belonged to an organization (the Modern Churchpeoples Union) described as "suspect."

These are (primae facie at least) real cases of people being sanctioned because of views they hold or are alleged to hold. Shawn Sanford Beck's case, while not completely dissimilar, is not quite the same either. The threatened sanctions were not due to his views, but due to a stated intention to act in a way that was not canonically authorized. Further, although the sanction was considered, it was not implemented.

I don't know the Bishop of Saskatoon very well, but I do know him. He is, to my experience, a reasonable man and certainly not one to crush dissent. He did not deserve to be included on that list.

And so it begins

The Lambeth conference began today. Most of the blogs linked to the righthand side here have assorted coverage of events. So far, it appears that no one has managed to stage a coup d'eglise and reorder the Communion to their own liking.

Of course, that is partly because those who would do so have mostly decided to boycott the show. Bishops from Nigeria, Uganda, Rwanda and Kenya have decided not to attend - and the bishops of the Diocese of Sydney, having had their hands forced when the Primate of Nigeria falsely claimed they'd already decided to boycott - were pretty much cornered into boycotting.

But it turns out that at least one Nigerian bishop, at least one Rwandan bishop, and as many as ten Kenyan bishops (one third of their whole House) have effectively told their imperious primates where to get off. At this point, it appears that only Uganda has managed to enforce it's refusenik position.

The Primate of Nigeria is already breathing fire and has threatened "serious" consequences against this dissenter. So it turns out that the "conservative" myth of oppression (ie, the false claim that conservative clergy in North America are "persecuted") is based on their own behaviour. They know that they use bully tactics when they can, so they assume everyone else is a shameless and wicked as they are.

Of course, refusing to turn up is not - despite their histrionics - the tactic of winners. It is the chosen tactic of those who know that they are losing.

Pity. As obnoxious and two-faced as Peter Akinola and his co-conspirators are, few if any liberals want to see them expelled from the Communion. (Might not shed a tear if they left on their own, perhaps, but that's not the same as wanting them punted.)

In any event, the defiance of at least 12 African bishops has shown up the weakness of those who would set themselves up as a new inquisition.

Pray for the all the bishops who showed up. And pray for the bishops who didn't. And pray especially for the primus inter pares, Rowan of Canterbury. A useful prayer is offered on the righthand side of this page.

A Mess of Potage

We've all been to a potluck supper.

I presume we have.

At least, that's what we call it around here.

Everyone coming brings some part of a meal - a salad or a main course or a dessert. It's the luck of the pot what the meal turns out like.

I've learned many things about pot luck suppers.

- There is never enough lemon meringue pie.

- There is almost always too much jellied salad.

- One should never use the occasion of a potluck supper to try out a new recipe.

I learned that last one the hard way.

It was, so to speak, a wifetime ago. We were going to the Christmastide (ie, after December 25 and during the 12 days of Christmas) clergy party in one of the points of my parish. It was to be a family event. We'd eat, and then we'd go carolling. Which would mess people up, of course, because most of the secular world thinks Christmas ENDS on December 25th.

As the only clergy family that didn't actually live in that town, we needed a dish that would travel well. So my children's mother found a recipe for a humus like stew of chick peas, lentils and other stuff. According to the recipe book, there was a tradition that this stew was the "mess of potage" for which Esau sold his birthright.

As I said, we learned that night never to try out a new recipe when you're off to a potluck.

The other thing I learned that night was that Esau was even a bigger yutz than the Genesis account lets on.

The story is simple.

Jacob is cooking a stew. Esau returns from the field and says to his younger brother, "give me some of that stew." Jacob says, "sure - if you sell me your birthright." And Esau agrees.

Well, if that was the stew, Esau was a very stupid fellow. Bland was about the nicest thing you could say about it. Bland and with the consistency of wallpaper paste mixed with feathers.

Quite apart from the quality of the stew, the Genesis story points to Esau's foolishness and faithlessness in failing to give proper value to his birthright. He didn't take what he had seriously - he didn't value it - and so he lost it.

You remember the Joanie Mitchell song, I presume?

Don't it always seem to go
that you don't know what you've got 'til it's gone.
Pave paradise,
put up a parking lot.

We Anglicans have a birthright.

Our birthright is a Church where intelligence and intellect are valued, where questions are honoured, where diversity of opinion and of practice is respected.

Our birthright is a Church where the highest of high churchmen and the lowest of low churchmen can coexist. While the shape of the liturgy may be found in virtually every parish, the style and presentation can vary widely. While some of the clergy may appeal to the Early Church Fathers, others may appeal to the Caroline Divines, to Calvin, to Aquinas. All of them will try to claim the Judicious Divine, Dr. Hooker.

Our birthright is a Church that rejects the exclusive extremism of both Rome and Geneva while embracing the insights of both.

There are those who would have us sell our birthright for a mess of potage called certainty. They would have us set aside our experience as Canadian Anglicans and have us submit to the dictates of a self-appointed junta of foreign prelates - even though the rejection of foreign control was an essential part of the birth of Anglicanism.

Yes, Anglicanism is messy. We don't all look or talk or think the same.

It causes grief for our ecumenical partners. They don't understand our Via Media.

When the Roman Cardinal said we'd have to choose if we were catholic or protestant, he didn't understand that we HAVE chosen - and that we are both.

Messy, messy Anglicanism.

The very messiness of Anglicanism is it's strength as well as it's weakness - the comprehensive Anglicanism that seeks not "windows into men's souls." This questioning, searching, worshipping messiness is our birthright.

Let us not sell it for the bland stew of somebody else's absolutism.