Saying "something must be done" does not prove that something must be done.

There have been a lot of developments about the Anglican Covenant since last I posted about it.  Conveniently, the No Anglican Covenant Coalition has just this week issued a news release summarizing recent events.

• In the Church of England, four diocesan synods (Wakefield; St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich; Truro; Birmingham) have rejected the Covenant.  Four others (Lichfield; Durham; Europe; Bristol) have approved it.  In order to return to General Synod for final approval, the Covenant needs to be passed by 23 of the 44 dioceses - meaning that 22 rejections is enough to scuttle it in the Church of England.  The Covenanters need another 19 approvals to carry the day, while the Covenantsceptics only need another 18 to stop it.
• In the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, the Tikanga Maori rejected the Covenant at their biennial runanganui.  Several Paheka dioceses have also rejected it.  It is unlikely that the Covenant will be approved in New Zealand.
• In the Episcopal Church of the Philippines, the House of Bishops have indicated an intention to reject the Covenant, making it virtually certain that it will not be approved.

One of the interesting snippets out of England is the emergence of a disturbing pattern.  Bishops and diocesan officials in several dioceses have refused to allow the distribution of material critical of the Anglican Covenant to synod members.  Of the eight dioceses  that have voted on the Covenant, four allowed the distribution of balanced material and four did not.  It will not take a rocket surgeon to figure out which four are which.  The Coalition's episcopal patrons, John Saxbee and Peter Selby are actively encouraging their former colleagues to povide for a fair and honest debate in every diocese.

In the midst of this, the Archbishop of Canterbury has published his Advent Letter to the Anglican Primates.  In an intellectual fiddle which should be an embarrassment to any current or former academic, the Archbishop's defence of his pet project makes less sense than Glenn Beck on acid.

His response to the concerns raised by the No Anglican Covenant Coalition and others is simply to declare:

"I do not see the Covenant in this light at all."

Seriously Rowan?  Who do you think you are?  John Cleese?




He eventually devolves to Margaret Thatcher's favourite justification for bad policies, the famous TINA - "There Is No Alternative."

"I continue to ask what alternatives there are if we want to agree on ways of limiting damage, managing conflict and facing with honesty the actual effects of greater disunity. In the absence of such alternatives, I must continue to commend the Covenant as strongly as I can to all who are considering its future."

TINA, of course, is predicated on the unasserted and unargued assumption that "something must be done."

There is tension within the Anglican Communion.  Some people are very angry.  Something must be done.

Really?

Well, let's consider another international Communion of churches to see how they have handled this very same presenting issue.

The Porvoo Communion recently had a consultation to discuss the theology and practice of marriage among the member churches.  Some of the Porvoo churches permit the ordination of partnered GLBTQTS and some do not.  Some of the Porvoo churches bless same-sex unions, some do not and a few actually solemnize same-sex marriages.  Technically, the range of practice in the Porvoo Communion is actually broader than in the Anglican Communion, where no member church has formally approved same-sex marriages.

So, how does the Porvoo Communion deal with this diversity of belief and practice?

Well, here's what they said in their communique at the end of their recent consultation:

"The consultation made clear that differences over the introduction of same-sex marriage remain unresolved.  It is clear that there are a variety of views and pastoral practices along a theological spectrum.  Some believe same-sex marriage to be a legitimate development in the Christian tradition, whilst others see the potential for a serious departure from the received tradition.  Nevertheless the consultation affirmed the benefits of 'belonging to one another'.  The value of honest encounter and strengthened friendship provides a platform of sustained communication in the face of issues which raise dificulties for us."

So Porvoo can manage to muddle through without mechanisms to expel the outliers.  No meaty Covenant need be introduced to discipline the dissenters.  Porvoo simply acknowledges the disagreement and affirms the commitment to continue together.

The irony, of course, is that the Porvoo Communion is nothing other than the fellowship of Anglican and Lutheran churches in northern Europe.

So the same Church of England, under the leadership of the same Rowan Williams, manages to hold two completely contradictory opinions at the same time.

Well, your Grace, if it's good enough for Porvoo, it's good enough for me.

You want an alternative to your punative and exclusionary covenant?  Well, here it is:

We, the member churches of the Anglican Communion, agree to meet together regularly and to engage each other in adult conversation.

We, the member churches of the Anglican Communion, acknowledge that we will not always agree. 

We, the member chuches of the Anglican Communion, commit oursleves, in the face of disagreements, to love each other anyway, just as Jesus calls us to do.

Whatever the service to which you call us

An eventful 24+ hours.

Last night I attended my last training night as a member of HMCS QUEEN and Canada's Naval Reserve.  I'm not quite released yet.  I still have a release medical to attend to next week.  After almost 25 years of service, it will take some adjustment.

Today marks the 27th anniversary of my ordination to the priesthood.  Nearly half of that, of course, was spent on a sort of hiatus, but still.  Archbishop Michael Peers had wanted to mark the day as Hugh of Lincoln (who has been moved in the new calendar to tomorrow, displacing Hilda of Whitby to the day later).  I insisted on Margaret of Scotland in honour to my ancestry.

Icons by Marice: www.iconsbymarice.com.au

 

And today, I learned that an old friend was lost to the ravages of alcoholism.  At one point, he had been sober for 13 or 14 years until he went out to do more research.  Over the past few years, he kept trying to get back through the doors of Alcoholics Anonymous, but was never able to regain his footing.  He died last night.

Somehow, the collect for the commemoration of St. Margaret of Scotland, Helper of the Poor seems to apply:

O God,

you gave to your servant Margaret

such faithfulness as Queen of Scotland

that she cared for the poor

and relieved the needs of those who lay in prison.

Grant us a like devotion,

whatever the service to which you call us,

that we may be agents of your justice

and true servants of your mercy;

through Jesus Christ our Lord,

who is alive and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit,

one God, now and for ever.

"I'll lay me down and bleed a while"

It was that sort of a night.

I've been in and around politics in this province for about 35 years.  I've worked on winning campaigns and losing campaigns.  But I've only been involved on the losing end of four routs - including the rout on Monday of this week.

This week's massive drubbing in Saskatchewan, however, was different from the other three.  By the end of the 1982 campaign, we had concluded we might lose, but the scale of the loss was a complete surprise.  The same with the Manitoba election of 1988 and the federal election of 1993.  We knew there were problems, but no one expected a nine-member caucus in 1982, a fall to third place in Manitoba in 1988 or the loss of official party status federally in 1993.

On Monday, the Saskatchewan NDP actually exceeded my expectations.  That gives me some solace that it could actually have been worse.

My other reaction is that this provides Saskatchewan New Democrats with a golden opportunity - if we are brave enough and smart enough to take it.

First, we need to have some understanding of what happened.

Monday night, Dwain Lingenfelter showed as much class as I have ever seen him show.  He pointed to some of the party's failings in the lead up to and during the campaign.  The he said, "It was my fault, not yours."  Very classy.

Very classy, but not entirely accurate.

I won't deny that Dwain brought his own baggage to the race and that was no help.  But the malaise affecting the Saskatchewan NDP runs far deeper than mere leadership.  Indeed, one might argue that it was that very malaise that led us to choose the supposedly safe Link rather than the exciting but untested Ryan Meili or the passionate but less dynamic Yens Pedersen.

You see, the Saskatchewan NDP hasn't really renewed itself since the mid 1980s. 

Sure, there was a party renewal process initiated in 2000, but that was effectively derailed by the resignation of Premier Roy Romanow as party leader and the race which elected Lorne Calvert.  Leadership races, while they touch on ideas and ideology, are about organization, relationships, paying debts, currying favours and occasionally acting on ancient resentments and grievances.  Leadership races renew the face of the party, but not its heart and soul.

The lack of real intellectual renewal meant that the NDP had no clear agenda.  Having accomplished their first priority - the imposed priority of restoring fiscal stability to the government's books - the Romanow-Calvert ministry never figured out what to do next.  They wandered aimlessly for a decade.  Columnist Murray Mandryk claimed that the Calvert NDP lurched from crisis to crisis.  He had it wrong - they lurched from panic to panic - until the voters finally put that government out of its misery.

The upshot of it all was that, by 1997, the Saskatchewan NDP no longer knew what it stood for - apart from winning elections and providing more or less competent government. Desirable though such may be, it is hardly a clarion call to a new generation of activists.

Similarly there was a policy renewal process launched after Dwain Lingenfelter's election as leader, chaired by MLA Cam Broten, but there was little intellectual vigour in the process.  Essentially, it was a grand and semi-public platform committee.

The failure to renew - a failure more properly laid at the feet of Roy Romanow and Lorne Calvert than Dwain Lingenfelter - was only part of the problem however.  The other part was a complete failure to recognize that anything was wrong.

When the Blakeney government was defeated in 1982, no one could miss that there was a problem.  Reduced to their lowest popular vote in more than 40 years and to a caucus of nine (which became eight after a controvert and a lost byelection), no one could deny the party needed more than just minor repairs.  By comparison, the 2007 loss was never seen to be as severe as it actually was.  The popular vote was even lower than 1982 - now the lowest in almost 70 years.  But the seat count was deceptively high at 20 MLAs.

The result was an almost delusional belief that the party's problems really weren't that severe.  Root and branch renewal wasn't really necessary.  A new leader and some organizational rejigging would be suficient.  Dwain Lingenfelter seemed to have just the resume and just the personality to accomplish the tinkering that was needed - without that scary soul-searching that both Ryan Meili and Yens Pedersen seemed to be calling for.  Link was safe - especially for the party apparatchiks who wanted their ministerial office jobs back.

In essense, the Saskatchewan NDP seemed to modelling itself after the federal Liberals.  And not the successful federal Liberals of Laurier, King, St. Laurent and Trudeau, but the fossilized and feckless federal Liberals of Martin, Dion and Ignatieff.

So there is great opportunity in the results of Monday's election.  With our lowest popular vote now in almost 75 years, no New Democrat can possibly deny that the party has a problem.  The electorate, while costing the party some bright lights like Len Tayor and Frank Quennell, have also helped the party unload some underperforming placeholders.  The apparatchiks who preferred the aimless status quo must now either adapt or depart.  In the words of that old Scots ballad quoted by our iconic leader, Tommy Douglas, as he faced personal defeat:

"I am hurt, but I am not slain;

I'll lay me down and bleed a while;

and then I'll rise to fight again."

But if the NDP really wants to rise again, the next 12 to 24 months are critical.

First, the party council, in consultation with the caucus, needs to select an interim leader to serve for the next 18 to 24 months. It would be sheer madness for the party to start immediately on the process of electing a new permanent leader.  I've discussed above why leadership races are not conducive to renewal.  We've seen the evidence in our own experience over the last decade.  We need a time of serious self-examination.  A quick leadership campaign would be the party's death warrant.

Of the nine members of caucus, four are potential candidates for the permanent leadership (Broten, Chartier, McCall, Wotherspoon).  Of the rest, one is a veteran MLA with no Cabinet experience (Vermette) and one has no legislative experience at all (Sproule).

That leaves three potential interim leaders: Buckley Belanger, David Forbes and John Nilson.  Of these three, David Forbes seems to me the obvious choice.  He is a stronger retail politician than John Nilson and unlike Buckley Belanger, he was not part of the misguided campaign to bring Dwain Lingenfelter home to lead the party.

Second, the council should appoint a small task force to run a series of consultations around the province.  The task force should seek out members and former members, as well as civil society organizations, social movements, trade unionists, farm organizations - basically anyone who would be prepared to participate in the process.  The idea is to have a wide ranging, serious and challenging conversation about what it means to be a social democrat in Saskatchewan in the 21st century.

Third, based on that process, the committee should produce a statement of principles for the party to adopt at a provincial convention in the latter part of 2012 - a sort of modern Regina Manifesto.

Finally, the campaign to elect a new leader should begin no sooner than the spring of 2013.

There's life in the old party yet, but the wrong decisions over the next few weeks will decide how viable the Saskatchewan NDP will be moving forward.  My one request to the party executive and council:  Don't screw it up.

Sing we a song of high revolt!

Here is my online friend Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, talking (for himself and unofficially) about recent events at St. Paul's Cathedral in London.

The basic story is that the #OccupyLSX (London Stock Exchange) were prevented from occupying Paternoster Square (where the LSX actually is) and so ended up at St. Paul's Cathedral. When the police were about to run them off, the Canon Chancellor of the Cathedral, Giles Fraser, shooed the police instead. In response, the Dean and Chapter (ie, Giles's boss and colleagues) proceeded to have a week or more of hissy fits. Giles has resigned and the Dean and Chapter have managed to embarrass the bejeezly crap out of the Church of England. Or, as the Guardian tellingly put it:

This rather messy and absurd situation has handed the dean and chapter of St Paul's a truly historic opportunity to discredit Christianity in this country. They seem determined to take it.

In any event, here's Bishop Alan.

I am reminded of an old hymn, sometimes sung to the tune of The Red Flag. (Unable to find a YouTube.)

Sing we a song of high revolt!

Make great the Lord, his name exult!

Sing we the song that Mary sang

of God at war with human wrong.

Sing we of him who deeply cares

and still with us our burden bears.

He who with strength the proud disowns;

brings down the mighty from their thrones.

By him the poor are lifted up.

He satisfies with bread and cup

the hungry folk of many lands.

The rich are left with empty hands.

He calls us to revolt and fight

with him for what is just and right;

to sing and live Magnificat

in crowded street or council flat.

Seriously? Racism isn't that hard to spot.

So, on Friday, the Saskatchewan Party candidate in Yorkton issued an apology for remarks made at an all candidates meeting some days previously.  According to his own account:

"I don't remember my exact words, but I said something like, 'What I have been told by some of my First Nations friends is that sometimes when there are handouts or the money comes free and easy, it can be used for alcohol and drugs'."

Now, to his credit, it was actually Greg Ottenbreit's apology that broke the story.  In other words, it wasn't a media storm that sparked the apology.  Ottenbreit (perhaps with some help) managed to conclude on his own that his comments were mind-numbingly stupid and had no place in the public discourse.

He shouldn't have said them in the first place, of course.  But in the end, he did the right thing without having the media force him into it.

Conservative MP David Anderson, however, not so much.  The anti-Canadian Wheat Board hardliner produced one of those "do it yourself" videos of a supposed encounter between a Saskatchewan grain farmer and a CWB official.  Unlike the majority of prairie grain farmers (ie, those who hold permit books, unlike the CWB's would be executioner Gerry Ritz) both Anderson and his fictional farmer want to rid themselves of the benefits of orderly marketing.  In the course of the video, the fictional farmer / Anderson stand-in uses the phrase "talking Eskimo" to suggest that the Wheat Board official is not making sense.

Now, I've never heard the phrase "talking Eskimo" used in this way in all of my 50 years.  It isn't one of those dated but offensive phrases one might go back to without thinking.  Other than references to my least favourite professional football team, the word "Eskimo" has long since fallen out of use.  The people it referred to prefer to be known as Inuit - a word from their own language.

But even if the word "Eskimo" weren't offensive in itself, the way it is used in the video is simply offensive - implying that "Eskimos" are incapable of sensible thought.

Instead of apologizing for spewing racist tripe, David Anderson has simply taken down the offending video and, apparently, gone into hiding from the Ottawa press gallery.

Neither Ottenbreit nor Anderson have covered themselves in glory, but Ottenbreit, at least, has manned up.

Bishop of Qu'Appelle visits #OccupyReginaSk

This evening, I had the privilege of accompanying Bishop Greg Kerr-Wilson when he visited the site of #OccupyReginaSk.  There are about 50 people actually living onsite in Regina's Victoria Park.  One of the saddest commentries on the state of things is that sleeping on an air matress in a tent on a brisk October evening is actually a step up for the 10 - 15 homeless people that are part of the occupation.

We had planned the Bishop's arrival to coincide with the 8:00 pm assembly, where business is usually conducted and where occupiers and visitors are able to speak to the whole group.  However, with the organic logic of anarchic process, it had been decided the assembly would be pushed back so tents could be moved while the greatest number of people were there.  And yes, the Bishop and I helped move tents.  (The tents were being moved in order to have better shelter from the wind and so the grass in one part of the park would have a chance to recover.)

While the corporate media have tended to depict the #Occupy protests as little more than inchoate rage against the financial system, the Bishop and I spoke to several people who clearly understood not only that the system isn't working, but could also articulate why the system isn't working.  One of the most interesting bits of analysis came from an ex-Saskatchewan Party MLA.  (For my non-Canadian readers, that would be like an ex-Republican State Assemblymen in the US.)  He spoke about how the movement of capital and the accumulation of profit is no longer related to any productive activity.

Bishop Greg spoke only briefly - in part to indicate that his agenda this evening was primarily to listen to the people occupying the park.  Several people spoke to us afterwards about the need for religious leaders to speak about the moral dimension of the economic crisis.  I expect we'll hear more from our Bishop in due course.

We live in a strange time when the Governor of the Bank of Canada, a former US Treasury Secretary, some of the richest men on the planet and even the Conference Board of Canada can acknowlede that the system is broken and that income inequality is breaking the system even further, yet the political system is seemingly unaware of the problem.

Something for both my political and my religious readers

Today's Toronto Star carries a sad yet far from unusual story about Dan and Alice Heap. 

Dan Heap was an Anglican priest who chose to work in a box factory as a better means of engaging ordinary people both about the gospel and about social justice.  In time, he was elected to Toronto City Council.  In 1981, he stunned the pundits by winning a federal byelection in Spadina, which had previously been a Liberal stronghold.  His municipal ward was later represented by the late NDP leader Jack Layton, and his federal seat is now held by his former constituency assistant, Olivia Chow.

Compared to many people in today's economy, Dan and Alice are relatively well off financially, including the MP pension that the Canadian right used to rail about.  They did make the "mistake" of selling their former home at less than market value to a community based organization, but they likely still have an overall retirement income that would be the envy of many Canadians of their generation.

Yet Dan and Alice couldn't get long term care in their community.  Their needs (especially Dan's) are now well beyond what their former retirement home could manage.  They've been on a waiting list for several years.  In the mean time, members of their extended family have been staying with Dan and Alice 24/7, sleeping on the floor of thier very tiny suite.  (Oddly, just as the story came out, a space became available for Dan.  What a coincidence.)

The story is perhaps a little more poignant because of who Dan is (former Councillor and former MP) and because of who Dan and Alice are (longterm community activists).  Unfortnately, their story is not exceptional.  In Canada today, it's a travesty.

I remember Dan from when I was a divinity student at Trinity.  He had just won the Spadina byelection a few weeks before the beginning of my first term.  (The byelection was called when Pierre Trudeau gave the sitting MP, Peter Stollery, the taskless thanks of an appointment to the Canadian Senate.  Trudeau flunky Jim Coutts was expected to win in a walk.  Ah well, "the best laid schemes," as they say.)  He was my MP throughout my time at Trinity, and he was a great support in my time as Chair of the University of Toronto New Democrats.  I last saw him several years ago, on a trip to Toronto, when I attended the service at Holy Trinity, Eaton's Centre.

Because of Dan's dementia and Alice's own issues, they need full time care.  Yet ironically, there are many people in care homes (usually at lower levels of care) who, with the proper supports, could still be living in the community - and at less cost to the health system.

I've had parishioners who've been "warehoused" in hospitals or other facilities while they wait for appropriate placements.  I'm well aware that a space opening up unsually depends (directly or indirectly) on some other person dying.  In the process, our "golden years" become a nightmare.  And while some facilities are lovely environments, others are horribly run down and positively depressing.

The people who live in these facilities deserve better - both better facilities and better allocation processes.