Follow the yellow brick road

Rowan Cantuar's final address to the Lambeth Conference is available here.

He says, at one point, "this is emphatically not about forcing others to conform."

I wish I believed him.

The recommendations of the Windsor Report, without any formal process of consent or reception, has effectively been transformed into an edict to which the whole Communion is expected to submit. Similarly, the preliminary observations - note the word preliminary!!! - of the Windsor Continuation Group have now been enshrined as the immutable roadmap to the future.

Rowan, with no real consultation and no real consent, is seeking to impose a centralized and curial Anglicanism that effectively guts provincial autonomy. Under this centralized, curial Anglicanism, we would never have had room to consider our approaches to divorced Christians, nor to consider the role and ministry of women in the Church. We would have been held back until and unless there was broad agreement across the Communion. But the breadth of agreement which does exist on these issues has emerged largely because people have experienced the graceful lives of divorced and remarried Christians, because people have experienced the graceful ministry of ordained women.

I wish I could trust. I want to trust.

But today, I find myself unable to trust.

Reflections - final version

The final version of the Reflections document is available here.

Para 91 is now para 106, but it still retains the misguided idea that the 1998 1.10 listening process was about listening to straight bishops and not GBLT Christians. If this is what passes for intelligent analysis among bishops . . .

Para 131, now para 145, retains the delusional belief that the proposed moratoria will survive beyond next weekend. Apparently they haven't heard that Nzimbi of Kenya (on behalf of the GAFFEPRONE schismatics) already told them to get stuffed.

I did notice one other clanger that should be of concern to any authentic Anglican.

150. Anglican Consultative Council. There is a lack of knowledge in the Communion about the Council and its members and therefore an uncertainty about its role. Some believe it exercises too much authority; others would like to see it reconstituted and given more. One suggestion was of a two-tier Council with a tier of Primates and another of clergy and laity with the inclusion of younger representation. There was a desire to enhance the presence of clergy and laity in decision making at the Communion level.

Let there be no illusion about what this means.

It means handing control of the Anglican Consultative Council to the Primates. The enhanced presence of clergy and laity would be offset by reduced authority as the Primates sieze power.

Ironically, the very next para recognizes the grasping and overreaching of the Primates Meeting over the past few years. Giving the Primates effective control of the ACC is hardly the solution.

If I wanted to be ruled by a Pope and a Curia, there is another Christian body on offer.

I did not become an Anglican to be a pretendy Roman Catholic - or rather, given the theological leanings of the coup plotters, a Roman Calvinist.

This Primates have already made one unsuccessful attempt to take over the Anglican Consultative Council.

Para 150 is a clear and unequivocal power grab.

Authentic Anglicans must be on their guard.

Draft reflections - and misplaced sacrifice

The fourth draft of the Reflections paper (which will be the only formal output from Lambeth) can be found here. Episcopal Cafe has a decent analysis of several points - and several bishops' comments - here.

I only want to comment on a couple of points which are . . . what is the phrase I'm looking for . . . irredeemably stupid.

131. The moratoria cover three separate but related issues: Episcopal ordinations of partnered homosexual people, the blessing of same-sex unions; cross-border incursions by bishops. There is widespread support for the moratoria. This could be the “generous act of love” the communion is looking for. The moratoria could be taken as part of a sign of the bishops’ affection, trust and goodwill towards the Archbishop of Canterbury and one another. The moratoria will be difficult to enforce, so there are some fears as to whether it will hold. But there is a desire to make it do so. There are questions to be explored in relation to how long the moratoria are intended to serve. Perhaps the moratoria could be seen as a “season of gracious restraint”. In relation to moratorium 2 there is a desire to clarify precisely what is proscribed. Most believe it relates to public authorised rites, rather than pastoral support. It is critical that all three moratoria are seen as inseparable and must be applied equally.

All very nice, I suppose. But the current boundary crossers have already told the Communion to get stuffed. Frankly, the declared intent of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda et al to continue their massive criminal conspiracy to steal the property of the Canadian and American Provinces pretty much leaves all three proposed moratoria, whatever their merits, null and void.

91. The third meeting of the Anglican Consultative Council in 1976 spoke about the Communion in this way: “As in the first century, we can expect the Holy Spirit to press us to listen to each other, to state new insights frankly, and to accept implications of the Gospel new to us, whether painful or exhilarating. (ACC-3 p.55)” Lambeth 1998 Resolution 1.10, while reiterating clearly the traditional stance of the Church, also called for sensitive listening. The Bible study and indaba groups gave us the opportunity to meet in a spirit of generosity and prayerful humility which helped us to listen patiently to each other and to speak honestly.

Well, at least they acknowledged that 1998 Lambeth 1.10 called for "listening" - a fact the "conservatives" consistently ignore. But the idea was to "listen to the experience of homosexual persons," not heterosexual bishops. Apparently the drafters of this document fail to comprehend that relatively straghtforward clause.

Here's a hint, folks. In order to "listen to the experience of homosexual persons," you have to have some homosexual persons in the bloody room. Listening politely to straight bishops from North America does NOT fulfill the obligations of 1998 1.10, whatever the myopic drafters may think.

In relation to this confusion, I refer you to another story at Episcopal Cafe.

The language now is about sacrifice. What are people prepared to sacrifice in order to maintain communion. And clearly, the North American Provinces are being asked to sacrifice the full inclusion of gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered.

Thing is, gays, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered aren't being asked, and they have no voice to answer.

The people who are being asked to make a sacrifice are not represented at this conference.

Katherine Ragsdale, also from the Witness, put a finer point on it with her question. It is the essence of Christianity to sacrifice one’s self for others. It is in the inverse of Christianity to ask others to sacrifice themselves for you. The future of the Anglican Communion may rest on the willingness of gay and lesbian Christians to “sacrifice” for it.

And the Communion doesn’t have the good grace to ask them to make that sacrifice directly, preferring to pretend that the Western churches have the moral authority to act as their surrogates.

This is the feudal morality—lords making decisions for their vassals.

Henry, go to your room

Who would have imagined that I would ever agree with The Telegraph? Little card-carrying Christian socialist me, agreeing with the most right wing of Britain's "quality" papers. The one formerly owned by Conrad, Lord Black of the Florida Department of Corrections. The paper that makes Canada's National Post sound like New Democratic Party apologists.

But here we are. I find myself in complete agreement with The Telegraph.

And I'm not quite sure what to do about it.

The story doesn't begin at The Telegraph. It actually begins at the Times of London on Friday, when the Primate of Uganda, Henry Orombi, was a featured guest columnist.

Well, arguably, the story begins much earlier than that, back when Henry Orombi, Peter Akinola and the rest of "the usual suspects" tried to blackmail Rowan Williams by declaring that they would boycott the Lambeth Conference if any of those horrible North Americans were allowed through the door.

Rowan, made of sterner stuff than some realized, didn't submit to their edict. He invited all the legitimate North American bishops - well, all but one.

The refuseniks couldn't climb down, so here they are. Or rather, here they aren't.

But they have attempted time and again to disrupt the Conference they declined to attend and which they described as irrelevant.

It has been a mixed effort, under the careful management of orchestra leader Chris Sugden (or rather, The Reverend Canon Doctor Sugden as he prefers to be known). Chris is the leader of a group of fundamentalist evangelicals in the UK who amusingly pretend that they are the Anglican Mainstream.

Chris has orchestrated a series of metaphorical roadside bombs in his efforts to blow up the Conference. The two most significant IEMs (Improvised Explosive Missives) were the GAFFEPRONE attack on the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Communion and the XXIth century signed by all the usual suspects - including at least one who said he hadn't signed ( I wrote about that one here) - and yesterday's Times of London hatchet job by Orombi (you can read his venomous screed here).

So, what did The Telegraph say that was so brilliant?

Well, you can the read the piece from their religion editor's blog here. But it is so good (and sufficiently brief) that I'd like to share it with you in it's entirety.

George Pitcher
Lambeth Conference: Uganda chips in

Thursday, July 31, 2008, 05:51 PM GMT

I bump into a senior church figure near the Conference's Marketplace, a hangar behind the Sports Centre where you can get dressed as a bishop and buy all their books. I ask him what he makes of remarks from Henri Orombi, Archbishop of Uganda, about the Archbishop of Canterbury being little better than a remnant of colonialism and, unlike the Pope, being unelected and appointed by a secular government.

My eminent friend looks distant for a moment. "It's Orombi's way of getting into the conference," he replies. "If he's got something to say to us, he should have come here to say it. It's a sign of how frustrated the boycotters are that the Anglican Communion is getting on with its business without them. And it's a very childish response."

Sounds about right. To which one might add that Dr Orombi's talk is of colonialism and the removal of authority from the Archbishopric of Canterbury. So it's good to know for certain now that all the protestations from the alternative conference Gafcon about the boycott not being an African power-play, but rather a claim for authentic Christian witness based on biblical authority, are worth about as much as the Archbishop of Uganda's respect for his fellow bishops.

"A very childish response."

Yes, that does sound about right.

Weeks of people who refused to show their faces trying to control the agenda from afar.

Weeks of people who don't have the integrity to tell people off to their face lobbing bitchy letters, desperately pretending to be relevant.

The thing is, the GAFFEPRONE boycott is a failure.

They have failed to control the conference.

They've had some limited success in running the media coverage - but that is less a function of their own scheming than a failure of the inept media relations put in place by feckless Lambeth Palace officials.

The Potemkin Village which is GAFFECON suffered several blows over the course of the Conference as it emerged that only two Provinces (Uganda and Nigeria) were able to keep their people home - and that only by threats and intimidation - including reported threats against one bishop's wife.

They have failed.

Deliberate Distortions

Wednesday at Lambeth, the bishops and their spouses met together in the Big Blue Tent.

Well, not exactly together. The men were on one side of the tent and the women on the other.

The subject for the day was violence - specifically violence against women.

Episcopal Cafe provides extensive coverage here.

My bishop relates his experience of the day here.

There were a number of aspects to the event. It included a Bible study about the rape of Tamar (2 Samuel 13: 1-22). It also included a dramatic presentation which intertwined several Gospel accounts of Jesus healing women.

Many participants have spoken or blogged about it since. All those who have commented have said that it was a powerful morning.

But most of the media fallout has been about comments by Catherine Roskam, a suffragan to the Bishop of New York.

Her comments are reported here, here and here. Guardian religion editor Riazat Butt comments on it here.

What did she say?

• She said that men who are violent towards women and children do it because they can. This is a simple statement of fact. The victims of domestic violence do not cause their own victimization - despite what their brutalizer inevitably claims.

• She said that, within the context of the Lambeth Conference, where more than 700 men are present in a variety of roles, it is probable that there are some men who have perpetrated violence against women. Again, this is a simple statement of fact. If that collection of 700+ men were typical, then somewhere between 70 and 210 (depending on the study) have committed acts of domestic violence. Even is the group is atypical (and God knows we all hope it is) the chances are slim that there is not a single man there who has ever used violence against a woman.

• She said that some of the participants in the conference are from societies that are more tolerant of domestic violence. Yet another simple statement of fact.

Violence is disturbing - and violence against women particularly so.

What disturbs me about this story is the verbal violence and dishonesty directed against this bishop - this woman bishop - for having the temerity to speak the truth.

In doing so, they have lied again and again, deliberately twisting what Bishop Catherine said to serve their own hatemongering agenda.

• She did not single out Africans or any other group of bishops - despite the repeated bleating lies of the "conservatives."

• Similarly, she did not give her brother American bishops a free pass either.
  

The "conservatives" are in full throated lynch mode. Even the more sensible conservatives have been dragged along with the mob.

The media coverage, even from respectable periodicals like the Times of London and the Guardian, has been shallow and sensationalist. Ruth and Riazat, could you please show me where Bishop Catherine said that domestic violence is not a problem in the United States? Of course you can't, because she didn't.

Violence against women is a fact.

It is a deplorable fact. A shameful fact. A hideous fact.

But it is a fact.

It happens in North America, in England, in Africa, in every society where men and women live together. (And yes, neither is domestic violence unknown among gay and lesbian couples.)

It happens in poor homes and wealthy.

It happens in religious households, secular households, Christian households and Muslim households.

Perhaps it does not happen in episcopal households.

But I doubt it.

After all, if it never happened in episcopal households, why has this been a consistent request from the spouses conference prior to both the last Lambeth and this one?

And why is it that the seating arrangements - separating men and women - was explained in terms of making it safe for women to participate?

Methinks that those in the lynch mob screaming the loudest are perhaps those whose own ox has been gored.

Bishop Terry Brown of Malaita, Melanesia

There were a handful of future bishops around when I was at college.

• To date, the only one of my classmates to become a bishop has been Michael Bird, coadjutor of Niagara.
  
• Dennis Drainville, coadjutor of Quebec, was the year ahead of us.
  
• Victoria Matthews, formerly of Edmonton and imminently of Christchurch, New Zealand was doing an advanced degree.
  
• Tony Burton, soon to be formerly Saskatchewan, was an undergraduate when I was there.
  
• Terry Brown, diocesan of Malaita, Melanesia, was tutor in church history.

Terry is quoted at length today in Bishop Alan's Blog (Alan Wilson, Bishop of Buckingham, suffragan to Oxford).

Go to Bishop Alan's Blog to get the context. Here is what +Terry has to say:

I was confirmed in The Episcopal Church, by a black bishop of Massachusetts. I was made deacon and ordained a priest in the Anglican Church of Canada, in the diocese of Fredericton, a Loyalist diocese, by a bishop whose ancestors ran away from the American Revolution because they distrusted liberalism, political and otherwise.

I was consecrated a bishop in the Church of the Province of Melanesia, a global south diocese, where all the Millennium Development Goals score about 3 out of 10, even though we are great dancers.

And to make matters worse, my own sexuality is "dodgy". I live in and am a part of all four worlds -- The Episcopal Church, the Anglican Church of Canada, the Church of Melanesia and the pained world of gay and lesbian laity, deacons, priests and bishops.

Yet I am a bishop of a diocese that is full of life and has had much growth. In my last 12 years as bishop, I have confirmed 10,000 candidates. The diocese is deeply involved in evangelism, education, medical work, liturgy and peace and reconciliation.

My life as a bishop in all four worlds is possible only because of my faith in Jesus Christ. I had a conversion experience in which I felt deeply loved by God. That, the Eucharist, the life of Christian friendship and community, and Scripture, have sustained me through thick and thin.

From my perspective, do I have any suggestions for the text of the final Reflection?

“Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and all these things will be added unto you.” There are many other competing kingdoms, do not bow to them.

As much as is in you, try to maintain communion and friendship with all, whether inside or outside the church, however deep the disagreement.

Reject the Puritan option. We are Anglicans, not Puritans.

Exercise restraint and urge others to do so, whether locally or globally. Not everything has to be said or written about.

Be very careful in using typologies to classify people, theologies and churches. We are all the children of God, redeemed, with all of creation, by the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If you have not done so, accept all the gay and lesbian people in your midst, in all their complexity, pain and celebration.

Finally, let the conversations (even debate) continue. Television has finally come to the Solomon Islands, so we now have the privilege of seeing BBC interview both Gene Robinson and Greg Venables. In our case, I do not think the church will thereby collapse. But in other situations, that may not be the case, and the endless talking to the media of both may be destructive. That is my final suggestion -- remember that whatever you say publicly in this wired age, will go to every corner of the world. Honesty and prudence are both Christian virtues. We need to learn to balance them.

Thank you.

Bureaucratic Hash

The Windsor Continuation Group have issued their preliminary observations.

I've read a lot of bureaucratic bumph in my day. In my secular life, I've spent more than a decade working in government, for heaven's sake. Circuitous meanderings where many, many words are used to say very little are nothing new to me.

Oi!

Frankly, this preliminary report makes the average academic musing by +Rowan Cantuar seem positively coherent.

To save you the trouble, it amounts to three preliminary, not quite, and certainly not carved in stone, recommendations.

• moratoria on blessing same sex unions, ordaining partnered gay bishops and foreign incursions by pretendy "orthodox" bishops;
• the creation of a Pastoral Forum, yet another tendencious committee to deal with the irregularities that already exist due to the uncanonical and schismatical behaviour of certain foreign prelates;
• bash on with that mass delusional bit of silliness, the Anglican Covenant.

You may gather that I don't think much of the preliminary observations.

It really isn't anything new. It could have been summed up in one brief sentence: "Make the Windsor Report part of the New Testament."

I mean, really. What is it with this bizarre attempt to treat a committee report like the fifth Gospel?

Jim Naughton at Episcopal Cafe quotes +Martin Barahona, the Primate of Central America: "The Windsor Report. It's just a report. When did it become like the Bible? The Covenant. Why do we need another covenant? We have the Baptismal Covenant. We have the creeds. What else do we need?"

He's right.

So were the Brazilian bishops at Curitiba when they said that the idea of the Covenant, rather than maintaining or strengthening the Anglican Communion, "risks defacing it."

For a calmer view, I refer you to Bishop Greg. But even he "came away feeling that we had accomplished very little of anything helpful toward finding a way forward."

__________________________________________________


The boycotting bishops have been a recurring issue.

Some of the "conservatives" have been claiming that 300+ Anglican bishops a) have boycotted Lambeth and / or b) attended GAFFEPRONE. They seem convinced that if they spin this falsehood with sufficient earnestness and frequency that it will somehow become true.

First off, about 1/3 of the bishops who attended the GAFFEPRONE picnic are not Anglican - at least, not in the sense that they are in any way connected to the Anglican Communion. GAFFEPRONE won't come clean on the numbers, but a significant number actually belonged to various previous schisms and "continuing Anglican" jurisdictions such as the Reformed Episcopal Church in the US and the so-called Church of England in South Africa.

Second, the number of Lambeth boycotters is nowhere near 300. Of 880 current bishoprics, about 650 bishops are at Lambeth. Some of those bishoprics are currently unencumbered by an incumbent. Some bishops have not come for health reasons or other causes that have nothing to do with the GAFFEPRONE refuseniks. One has been barred on the basis of who he loves. Reasonable estimates say that the boycotters amount to about 200 bishops. A serious enough boycott, surely. One is moved to wonder why Chris Sugden undermines his already limited credibility by exaggerating the numbers.

Of course, even the 200 is open to some . . . interpretation. We already know that at least one Nigerian bishop wanted to attend Lambeth - but fled home after threats to himself and his wife.

The Bishop of Botswana, +Trevor Mwamba adds further light to this issue in the Church Times. Here is the relevant excerpt:

". . . people are continuously talking up the absence of our brothers from four African provinces from this meeting. But the point is that a lot of those brothers of ours – 200 is a nice round figure – would have wanted to come here. That’s important to say.”

Bishop Mwamba described the situation as it had been in Uganda, “where a special Synod is organised and provision passed which would penalise any bishop coming to the Lambeth Conference. That denied freedom of expression in terms of any individual bishop. The invitation to Lambeth is in the gift of the archbishop and it is up to a particular bishop, not a particular province, to say I will come or I won’t come.

“What are we saying about our leadership styles? It was the same in Nigeria- many would have been glad to come. So when they say 200 of our brothers have boycotted the conference – definitely no. Maybe given the freedom, one or two would have stayed behind. It must be clearly understood: the reason why they didn’t come is that they were forced not to come.”

__________________________________________________


Finally, please go read this next item in it's entirety at Telling Secrets. It tells of a brave woman called Rose Ngeri, a lesbian from Nigeria. She has prepared a leaflet which she intends to give to every bishop she can find - especially the African bishops. This excerpt describes why she thinks this is important. And it tells us just how brave she is.

When Michael, who acted as her scribe [preparing the leaflet], asked her if she was not putting herself in no small amount of danger, she said, with no discernible alarm in her voice, that we must understand that when the sexual orientation of gay men becomes known, they are tortured and/or killed.

What becomes of lesbian women, she was asked.

Oh, she said, they just send men to rape us. But, she added, deeply distressed, gay men are tortured and killed.

As a lesbian, she is only going to be raped, and so she does not want to compare her potential suffering to that of a gay man who stands to be beaten and killed.

__________________________________________________


It's late for me here - and the bishops have already been up for a couple of hours at Lambeth.


Pray for them.

Pray for all the bishops - those who came, those who could not come, those who refused to come and the one who was barred from coming.

Pray for those who may feel betrayed by what happens in the coming days.

Pray for Rose Ngeri.

Pray without ceasing.