I Have Activated My Profile

There's method to my madness, but I need more time for reflection. I'm too strung out on coffee at the moment to hear the Spirit.

General Convention Resolution (Very Much A Draft)

Resolution AXXX The Windsor Process, the Lambeth I.10 Process, and the Common Life of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion

Resolved , the House of __________________ concurring, That the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church reaffirms the abiding commitment of the Episcopal Church to remain a constituent member of the Anglican Communion to the highest degree possible and bear much fruit in communion with the true vines grafted from the British Isles and planted by Christ throughout the whole Earth.

Resolved , that at the same time, the Episcopal Church over the last forty years has become convicted of her long participation in the oppression of the least in American society and the human race and thus has sought to convert her life to accomodate the marginalized in accordance with the commandments of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

Resolved , that the Episcopal Church has recognized for thirty years that gay and lesbian persons are by Baptism full members of the Body of Christ and of the Episcopal Church as “children of God who have a full and equal claim with all other persons upon the love, acceptance, and pastoral concern and care of the Church” (GC 1976-A069).

Resolved , that individual Dioceses of the Episcopal Church have varied greatly in their approach to abiding by this and similar resolutions. In some Dioceses, there are strong theological objections to admitting sexually active gay and lesbian persons to Holy Communion, even though many of these are in relationships characterized by "mutual fidelity" and the general cultivation of the Christian virtues. Yet in other Dioceses, sexually active gay and lesbian persons in such relationships are considered worthy for ordination and the exercise of Christian ministry and their relationships are recognized by public or private rites of blessing.

Resolved , that the other Provinces of the Anglican Communion likewise vary in their pastoral care and theological approach to gay and lesbian persons and in some cases have promoted actions by the civil magistrates against gay and lesbian persons, injuring their freedom to assemble and self-identify as gay and lesbian persons.

Resolved , that the mind of the Anglican Communion on human sexuality is most fairly expressed in Lambeth Resolution I.10 of 1998: "in view of the teaching of Scripture, upholds faithfulness in marriage between a man and a woman in lifelong union, and believes that abstinence is right for those who are not called to marriage; recognises that there are among us persons who experience themselves as having a homosexual orientation. Many of these are members of the Church and are seeking the pastoral care, moral direction of the Church, and God's transforming power for the living of their lives and the ordering of relationships. We commit ourselves to listen to the experience of homosexual persons and we wish to assure them that they are loved by God and that all baptised, believing and faithful persons, regardless of sexual orientation, are full members of the Body of Christ; while rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture, calls on all our people to minister pastorally and sensitively to all irrespective of sexual orientation and to condemn irrational fear of homosexuals, violence within marriage and any trivialisation and commercialisation of sex; cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions;"

Resolved , that many provinces of the Anglican Communion have taken actions that go against the mind of the Communion on human sexuality, either by the legitimization and benediction of same-sex unions or the ordination of those united in the same (as in the case of this Church) or by refusing to listen to the experience of homosexual persons (especially those among the baptized) and by providing defective pastoral care to them and their relationships or by promoting the irrational fear of homosexuals (as also in the case of this Church).

Resolved , that the 75th General Convention of the Episcopal Church repents on behalf of the Episcopal Church for her contempt for the mind of the Communion on this issue in taking such actions and straining the bonds of catholic unity and affection between the Provinces of the Communion and urges the repentance of all her bishops, clergy, and laity for their participation in the same. We also urge the repentance of any among the Communion who likewise have shown contempt for the mind of the Communion in Lambeth I.10.

Resolved , that at the same time, various members of this Church have used the precipitous actions of recent General Conventions as an excuse to reject the authority of their bishops in favor of the supervision of bishops both in and out of the Communion with this Church, who likewise have acted precipitously against catholic unity and order in the Communion by crossing diocesan boundaries. We ask all involved to repent of this.

Resolved , that whereas priests and deacons are ordained for the service of particular Dioceses, bishops are consecrated for the entire Church of God, and so the consecrations of bishops deeply affect the life of the Communion but the ordination of priests and deacons do not.

Resolved , that the Book of Common Prayer teaches that marriage is to be honored by all people, and so the benediction by the church of a state of life other than marriage in which sexual expression is thought pleasing to God or the benediction of marriages that do not adhere to the teaching of Holy Scriptures and Tradition affects the entire life of the Communion.

Resolved , that the ecclesiology and theology of matrimony and human sexuality in this Church has been in great disarray for many years.

Resolved , that the Windsor Report promotes a process whereby the ecclesiology of the Communion will be better clarified, which could be called, "the Windsor Process."

Resolved , that Lambeth I.10 promotes a process whereby the theology of human sexuality will be better clarified, which could be called, "the Lambeth I.10 Process."

Resolved , that while such Processes have the earnest participation of the Provinces of the Communion, it would be uncharitable for this Church to take decisive actions that might appear to reject our communion and accountability to the other Provinces.

Resolved , that the mind of the Communion as expressed in the Windsor Report suggests that the consecration of bishops in same-sex unions or the authorization of public rites for same-sex blessings constitute decisive actions on matters of ecclesiology and human sexuality.

Resolved , that the Windsor Report recommends moratoria on such consecrations and authorizations.

Resolved , that the Apostle Paul commands us to share the sufferings of fellow persons created in the image of God and our fellow brethren in Christ when he says, "But God has so arranged the body, giving the greater honor to the inferior member, that there may be no dissension within the body, but the members may have the same care for one another. If one member suffers, all suffer together with it; if one member is honored, all rejoice together with it." (I Corinthians 12:24-26).

Resolved , that moratoria on the consecrations of gay and lesbian persons and the benediction of their unions would cause them and those who love them and appreciate their membership and leadership in the Church to suffer.

Resolved , that present theological doubts about ecclesiology, matrimony, and human sexuality make it increasingly difficult to justify the consecration of bishops or blessings of intimate unions in general, when there is insufficient consensus about the relation of these matters to the divine economy.

Resolved , that while earnest discernment of ecclesiology and human sexuality continues in the Communion, there should be moratoria on the consecrations of bishops in general and the benedictions of marriages and same-sex unions.

Resolved,

that Canon I.18 of be amended to read:

For the time being, no Member of the Clergy of this Church shall solemnize any marriage.

[I'm not sure how the rest of it should work. Resolved, , that until the next Triennium, the clergy of this Church are forbidden from performing the services of Marriage, the Blessing of a Civil Marriage, or an Order for Marriage or acting as an agent of the civil power in solemnizing marriages or civil unions on pain of deposition or suspension. The clergy of the Church forbidden to perform benedictions of any other similar unions in any form whatsoever. Instead, the Bishop of the Diocese (or the Ecclesiastical Authority) may authorize a rite at the Peace of the principal Sunday Eucharist in each congregation, in which two members of the congregation (having notified the Minister beforehand) may make vows to one another of solemn covenant in accordance with Christian principles in a form provided by the Diocesan Bishop or the Ecclesiastical Authority. These covenants to be respected as marriage for all relevant purposes. Ministers forbidden to allow exchange of such vows for bigamous and incestuous unions. Bishops and other Ministers urged but not to required to permit exchange of vows between those of same or different sexes and offer premarital counseling. ]

Resolved,

that Canon III.16.5 be amended to read:

For the time being, upon receipt of the consents and assurance of the acceptance of the election by the Bishop-elect, the Presiding Bishop shall not take any order for the ordination of the Bishop-Elect.

Resolved,

that Canon III.16.8 be amended to read:

For the time being, no person shall be ordained Bishop.

Resolved,

that Canon III.17.2d be amended to read:

For the time being, when the Presiding Bishop shall have received a certificate signed by the President and Secretary of the House of Deputies (or certificates signed by the Presidents and Secretaries of a majority of the Standing Committees as the case may be), that the election has been approved, and shall have received notice of the acceptance by the Bishop-elect of his election, he shall not take order for the ordination of the Bishop-elect.


Resolved , that these provisions are to be reviewed next General Convention and maintained if the Processes continue in fidelity but not otherwise.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

OK, brothers and sisters, I need help. This resolution is long, and its logic isn't entirely clear. But I think the basic principles are there. There might be need to be more work on theological approaches. If you have any thoughts, expertise in Episcopal canon law, or membership in the House of Deputies or House of Bishops, please look this over and suggest whatever changes you like. I'd like to see if I can get together something decent to send out to Deputies. I will activate my profile and include an e-mail address so you can send me revisions etc. (and I can send you stuff, too).

MII Test

See Bending the Rule for details.

Linguistic 42
Mathematics 40
Visual/Spatial 28
Body/Kinesthetic 26
Naturalistic 32
Music 40
Interpersonal 25
Intrapersonal 30

Who Has Teaching Authority?

Over at Titusonenine, the rhetorical games continue. Reappraiser says something. Reasserter says it makes no logical sense. Dialogue averted. QED

Phil Snyder says, "CG [sic] has no teaching authority."

Well, who does?

The conventional wisdom of the reappraisers is that the ABC is not an Anglican Pope. OK. But one does not necessarily have to be the Pope in order to have some teaching authority. See Eastern Orthodoxy. ++Rowan (as much as I fear giving him such dignity) might be like the Ecumenical Patriarch.

Or maybe he is something unique in himself.

What is the relationship between Canterbury and TEC? What strains the bonds of our unity? The answer to that question is to be found in the history of a most turbulent decade, both politically and doctrinally: the 1780s.

I don't quite know the answer yet.

Pandagon Drives Me Nuts

But it's always worth reading. Apparently, we're one step closer to Pharaoh.

Ephraim Radner's Latest Screed

isn't half-bad and provides some insight into the mind of a deeply thoughtful reasserter. Both Richard Kew+ and Rev. Mr. Radner are concerned about the effects of technology (especially biomedical) on personhood itself. Note that Radner mentions the issue of in(e/i)quity, for instance. And frankly, such technology does raise the twin spectres of both idolatry and inequity.

I'm still working through my response to such concerns about the relation between sin, God, creation, and personhood. But I think it will turn on "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof" in the context of Paul and the meat market of Corinth, in which concerns about avoiding all implication of participation in idolatry are subordinated to the good gifts of God being used in thanksgiving.

Radner, of course, also makes the mistake of looking at science as potentially non-irrelevant (I use the double negative intentionally). God reveals Himself in very Word and very works: a dualism united and mediated through Our Lord Jesus Christ. Science in this debates serves an aetiological purpose. It purports homosexuality as a phenomenon and supplies an explanation that must agree with but is not in itself divine law. Scripture, too, provides an aetiology for homosexual activity (and other potential abuses of human sexuality such as adultery, fornication and arsenokoitia with one's wife. And respecting the Apostle, I will admit that it is possible that homosexual activity (and the other potential abuses) in some contexts arises from idolatry (either of foreign gods or the self). But if the works of God do provide non-idolatrous examples of homosexuality (and science may be capable of such demonstration), the church is called to reflect seriously on her tradition and how it might be deepened by this knowledge.

As for Radner's comments on "ascetics," I only will say that the tradition only speaks of men becoming celibate. And it speaks of this as a gift of the Holy Spirit. I'm still not quite sure what the Lord meant. And the gifts of the Holy Spirit are free gifts of God. Paul, when speaking of marriage in light of the eschaton says that it is better to marry than to burn with desire. He does not say that Christians who want to marry must have had bad relationships with their parents. He does not recommend that the community problematize the married. In fact, the Apostle and the tradition since have been careful to promote and cherish the gift of the eunuch-making spirit while recognizing marriage as a state of greater worldly obligation and as a vocation not to be despised in oneself or in others.

Thus, the third worst aspect of reparative therapy (after the harm it does to oneself and one's relationships) is that it seems to be the seeking of grace with works. If I were called to be a perpetual celibate (and I still may be), it would be obligatory for me to cultivate that. No one should say to me, "Well, if we give you enough therapy and keep you away from monastic breviaries and all other parts of the celibate lifestyle and make you read the Song of Solomon long enough, you'll want to marry a woman." So it remains clear. I and the tradition generally still don't know what to make of the Lord and the eunuchs. But I'm sure they are important somehow.

Finally, I have one comment to make on the relativization of Scripture. America is a land of immigrants, but throughout most of our history we've done our best to either keep them out and exploit them. It is unclear to me whether the first is prohibited by the Scriptures, but the second is forbidden by the Law and the Prophets in no uncertain terms. Our ancestors were strangers in Egypt, who were brutally exploited for the needs of the Egyptian polity and economy. We often talk of the immigrant as someone who will do what no American will do. Think on the end of Genesis, in which Israel and his family are admitted to tend sheep in Goshen, because the Egyptians think such an activity is unclean. How far might we be now from chaingangs of undocumented Americans (11 million or so) building the highways of Texas? How far are we from being Pharaoh? We are not far indeed if we forget our past. We are not far if we are asked on television about religious objections to criminalizing aliens (as Congressman Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin was asked recently) and our formation as Episcopal Christians leads us to say, "Jesus never crossed any national borders."

There is a kind of Scriptural relativism associated with the idea of "pluriform truth" and there is a kind of Scriptural relativism associated with honoring the fears of the culture and the ideal of the maximization of profit. Radner, I suspect, has in mind the former. I am learning to be concerned by both, but it is the latter that truly frightens me.

I Picked This Up From Derek To Lighten the General Mood

nstructions: Go to your music player of choice and put it on shuffle. Say the following questions aloud, and press play. Use the song title as the answer to the question. NO CHEATING.

[nb: I didn't cheat at all. I found I had to put albums after the names to distinguish, though…]

How does the world see you?
Jesus is My Boyfriend, J-Tron (My Apologies) [I didn't cheat, honest.]

Will I have a happy life?
Knife in the Dark (Fellowship of the Ring Soundtrack) [Yikes!]

What do my friends really think of me?
Tu qui Santuzza? (Cavalleria Rusticana)

What do people secretly think of me?
Walkaways, Counting Crows (MTV Live from the Ten Spot)

How can I be happy?
The Leavetaking, (Two Towers Soundtrack)

What should I do with my life?
Hope and Memory (Return of the King Soundtrack) [Ha!]

Will I ever have children?
Slaves to Rome, (Gladiator Soundtrack) [Huh?]

What is some good advice for me?
Bransles Simples (Coronation of the First Elizabeth)

How will I be remembered?
What Do You Do with a B.A. in English/It Sucks To Be Me (Avenue Q)

What is my signature dancing song?
Two Farandoles (Coronation of the First Elizabeth)

What do I think my current theme song is?
Office of Holy Communion (Collegium Regale) II. Credo, H. Howells

What does everyone else think my current theme song is?
He Trusted in God, Handel (Messiah) [Quite an interesting match to the first one]

What song will play at my funeral?
Te Per Orbem Terrarum, Charpentier (Te Deum) [Is it felicitous to play the Te Deum at funerals?]

What type of men/women do you like?
Get It Faster, Jimmy Eat World

What is my day going to be like?
These Words (I Love You, I Love You), Natasha Bedingfield [Maybe, that's tomorrow...]

What We Sometimes Forget About the Non-Jurors

A hundred years before, when William, Prince of Orange, came to the British Throne, and the Stuarts were banished, the Scottish Bishops refused to conform to the new regime, but remained loyal to King James. They were accordingly deprived from their sees, their places were given to Presbyterians, and the Presbyterian was constituted by law the established Church of Scotland. The deprived Bishops, hated equally by Scottish Presbyterians for their Churchmanship and by English Churchmen for their politics, met in secret for divine service, and perpetuated the episcopate by secret, but well authenticated, consecrations. They were only a few, and were persecuted bitterly, but they were ardent and true Churchmen, and perpetuated the old Scottish Liturgy, which was very similar to the first Prayer Book of King Edward VI. in England.

Persecuted Anglicans and by the sufferance of the Church of England? The idea of it!

He's A Better Man Than I

*Christopher has some great thoughts at Bending the Rule about our idolatry of catholicity, our various complexes about persecution and rescue that draw us from the way of Christ, and a nice shot about our general failure of imagination that I couldn't make without a bitter spirit. He can make it as someone who lives creatively in the shadow of the Great Traditions of the Body of Christ. He and C are very much like those who the Evangelist John writes about in the Gospel for today, "Those who live by the truth come to the light so that it may be clearly seen that God is in all they do."

There a few observations I want to make on his piece without cluttering up his comments box. The continual accusation of the reasserters against the reappraisers is that "they change the meanings of words." Initially, when I read *Christopher's description of catholicity, I first saw the merit in this. But then it occurred to me: what is catholicity anyway? For the Fathers I've read it seems to be the idea that the first order matters of Christian life are held in common by communities that differ greatly as to lower order matters. But that in the end, they are obligated to treat changes in first order matters together through the mutual consultation of their bishops looking charitably to the general practice of the church in the past. It began as a survival mechanism in the days of persecution, when you never could guarantee going from town to another that the underground community of Christianoi believed in a soteriologically effectual Christ. For that's what Christology is. It is the business of intellectually constructing a Christ whose soteriological efficacy we understand out of the faith we have in a Christ who is soteriologically effective no matter our intellectual deficiencies or subtleties. Christ has died! Christ is risen! Christ will come again! None of this changes if we believe Christ is the ground hamburger of our being, but we are certainly foolish (or perhaps over-wise) if we do believe so.

But the ancient model of catholicity has failed. If you're a Roman Catholic, you don't think so, because you have been conditioned to see Rome, her rites, and her doctrine as "universal." Unlike the account of Tacitus about the Christians and the Great Fire, Rome has become the place to which all justifying and sanctifying things of the world are drawn. But laid upon the ground of the ancient model of catholicity is the assumption that the mystical Body of Christ does not exist outside the Catholic Church. All other communities (except perhaps the Eastern Orthodox churches) are "ecclesial communities" not Eucharistic communities in which Christ is really present. To this day, I hear some Catholic commenters on Anglican blogs say that Anglicans shouldn't care about "catholicity," since Anglican orders aren't valid anyway, since it would take some gyrations of history to make them so. Of course, I don't believe this. I won't tell you why, but I am reasonably certain that the Eucharistic community extends well beyond the Roman Catholic Church.

But moreover, I cannot imagine the ancient catholicity to be workable in our present state of affairs. Who could imagine a meeting dominated by Eastern bishops and their agenda (though assented to by Rome) settling the doctrinal agenda of the Roman Catholic Church in this day and age? Who could imagine an Italian spending time in Coptic monasteries in order to establish a new religious order in Italy? But then again, who could imagine that a Swiss Protestant could found a religious order of both Catholics and Protestants from all the corners of the Earth? Could Calvin? Taize is more a model for catholicity in our time than Rome. This is best exemplified in her music, which began in French and Latin with French and Latin modes rooted in both the high and folk Mass traditions of France and Germany. But now each time a new brother with a charism for music is incorporated into that community, the music of the community becomes a little bit Xhosa or Cantonese.

At ILEOS, I have the opportunity to hear a great variety of Christian music from Africa. In my opinion, a new chant tradition, at least as rich as the Galician, is arising in South Africa from the churches of Natal, the Transvaal, and the Transkei. And the gifts of the Christian world are not given in music alone. From Australia and New Zealand, we soon may see signs of a theological awakening that may provide new insight into the relation between the Kingdom of God and the created order. These are a few examples of the catholicity of the church being lived out in the midst of globalization. And while I suspect I may see a day in which Nigerians sing American worship songs and I sing the Magnificat to the work songs of the Reef mines, it is all to the good.

For if we believe Christ took on the fullness of our humanity, each one of us has seen only a small measure of the Incarnate Christ. And most of all, we look to the time when there shall be before the Throne of the God and the Lamb a great multitude that cannot be counted: a kingdom of priests from every tribe, language, and nation to serve our God. Of course, if we ever discover aliens (as Father de Leuuw recently joked), our understanding of catholicity may need to be more expansive.

For in the end, our mimesis of Christ must be as wide and broad and long as our limitations will allow. For the One who came among us to die for our salvation is the same One "through Him all things were made." Any sort of catholicity that thinks it can say (even with reference to the Scriptures) that something in this world cannot and never under any circumstances can be of Him through whom all things were made may need to search the Scriptures more.

But as we seek to receive Christ widely in one another and the cosmos of his design (to be Plotinian about it), we do risk seeing ourselves as the firstfruits of the Kingdom. We cannot. We must seek continuity with our forefathers and foremothers in the Body who pray for us before the Throne. We must think on them with charity. We must acknowledge their critiques. And we must treat them to be as alive as they actually are. They must both argue and be critiqued. For the Scriptures suggest that we will come to judgment before them as well as before Christ. And by receiving them into the fullness of the Eucharistic community (as is their desert), our catholicity will be complete.

Quae Cantuaria et Hierusalem?

"Just look around the blogosphere from left to right, conservative to liberal, traditional to evangelical. We are obsessed with trauma and drama, with our unity and image, our wrongs and our rites, and we're intent on feeding the fire. We watch every move of Canterbury for a pronouncement, as if we had a Pope, and in so doing we betray the complexity of our catholic ecclesiology (which emulates fourth century locality as Fr. Haller, OBG repeatedly points out to no avail) and our own power. We offer tit for tat for our various disagreements fueling the practice of discourse at the expense of common prayer, the only practice that has held us together in our broad tent, and worse, at the expense of practices of neighbour care. "

I feel so very convicted by this, not because I really have some sort of papal ecclesiology (I will admit that the Archbishop of Canterbury is referred to around the Monastery as "Patriarch of the North") but because I realize just how attached I am to Anglican as a label. My attachment began as a familial one. If you go back far enough on both sides of the family, we have been Episcopalians or Anglicans. (There's many Roman Catholics, too, including one amazing collateral connection among the Maryknolls, asleep in the Lord now). I can't say they were spectacular Anglicans. I descend from New England slaveholders and a convicted arsonist. Camassia recently cited a piece by Maggie Gallagher about "crunchy cons" who become Maronites, because they do not have a tradition of their own. Gallagher alternately criticizes them and pities them for treating religion as just another consumer good.

I don't have that problem. My mother was good enough to insist I be raised as something, and my father was good enough to take the opportunity of my birth to find a TEC parish in his new environs. I was raised on critiquing the sermon, moaning about Morning Prayer instead of Eucharist, and enduring politely nasty church politics.

And yet I would say that I have made my tradition my own. At a certain point, there was no compulsion to continue in it, and it would be ridiculous to say that there could have been any compulsion during the last four years. And I confess that I have been an Anglican Communion wonk for a long time. When I was about eight, I wanted to go to Cambridge to study theology. These days, I'd settle for a postdoc. I've had fellow parishioners from the Church of South India. "Exiles" from Sydney and expats from Southern Africa are becoming friends. There's an Australian archdeacon (really more of a rural dean) who I remember in my prayers every once in a while. And a Nigerian priest in Ohio sends me some very useful e-mail once in a while. Apparently, he and his bishop have been working to help out some churches in Nigeria with funds and sweat equity. The Communion is not just a deeply flawed institution to me; it represents a lot of people in various corners of the Earth with whom I would like to serve and worship every once in a while. Anglican identity helps make strangers friends.

But why look to Canterbury? *Christopher is right. Our unity is founded on common prayer and local episcopal government by men with "magic hands" rather than any other idealization from some "pristine" era. TEC was founded by a man of positively presbyterian leanings. But there's just something about the Chair of St. Augustine that can turn a royal patsy into the king's leading critic or mold a wily intellectual into an audacious martyr. For an Anglican, Canterbury itself feels like home , especially when people are celebrating the Tridentine Mass in the crypt. [Random comment from radicalfeministpoet at Jake's place.] And English prelates in general feel like home. Christians ultimately are Jews who found their Messiah in a most alarming and beautiful manner. And so the shadow of the Temple's loss still lies heavy on our hearts. By creating institutions like Rome and Canterbury, we seek to consecrate new Temples and new high priests. But *Christopher is right. We cannot go too far with this. Our lives ought to be an ikon of the Temple in heaven and our High Priest ought to be Christ.

There is a story the monks tell on the Feast of St. Augustine of Canterbury,

When Augustine came to Britain, there were Christians among the Celts in Wales and the Westcountry and in the North among both Dal Riada and the Picts, the latter having been evangelized by Columba. Some wise monk in Wales, perhaps an Irishman and student of St. Finnian, advised the bishops of Wales, "Go to this Roman bishop and greet him in Christ as a brother. But see how he greets you. If he stands and embraces you, you will have no trouble from him. But if he does not greet you as a brother and sits in your presence, then this island will be rent not only between the Saxons and you in kingship but soon also in Christ. So some of the bishops went to Augustine and greeted him in Christ. And he did not greet them likewise but sat down and began to question them.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that since we have a great High Priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Christ, we might be bold enough to go before the throne of grace and obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need

The Bishop of Exeter Lays Down the Law

Or that's the gist of this item, which has T19 abuzz .

Jim Naughton posted this comment on Thinking Anglicans while commenting on a different item, but it seems apropos :

WHEREAS we don't know which candidate will be elected in California, and

WHEREAS we don't know whether the elected candidate will be confirmed by General Convention, and

WHEREAS we have no idea which of the myriad proposed, rumored, imagined responses to the Windsor Report will be embraced by General Convention, and

WHEREAS we don't know by what yardstick (or whose yardstick) that response will be judged, and

WHEREAS the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada might not be the only provinces judged to be on the wrong side of the Windsor Report

BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED...
that we not get too worked up about anonymously sourced items such as this one.

The difference is that this is not anonymously sourced. Ms. Gledhill claims there is a transcript of this speech. And unfortunately, David Virtue's sources seem not to have provided him with a copy. But he does have excellent coverage of the battle against Bishop Bennison (please remember four Dioceses in your prayers tomorrow: Tennessee, Albany, West Texas, and Pennsylvania). But Mr. Naughton's counsel remains solid.

But let this be clear: ++Rowan Cantaur fears both a schism in the Church of England and the Anglican Communion. His choice of the Bishop of Exeter as an envoy and the contents of his speech are very pointed. And there is a meeting scheduled in late April in which ++Rowan will consult with such prelates and lights among the laos as +Wright, +Nazir-Ali, the ACC delegation of the C. of E., and Anglican Mainstream. He wants to know what the Evangelical wing wants and he wants to have plans in place before June.

And some time in May, a letter will come from Lambeth to a certain address within the City of New York addressed to the Most Reverend Frank Tracy Griswold. And this letter will be kind, fudgy, and friendly in the salutatory, but it will be a yardstick written (as Jim Naughton might put it).

And there will be a line to this effect: "If the General Convention does not repent of its hasty and autonomous repudiation of the mind of the Communion concerning human sexuality, the ecumenical activities of the Communion may be irreparably wounded for the foreseeable future. Moreover, such a failure might destroy the unity of the Church of England, which I have vowed to uphold, and the unity of the Communion which looks to my See. I cannot allow that to happen. Thus, I will be forced to severe those bonds of communion which have joined our Churches for two centuries. It goes without saying that I will not invite you or any of the other bishops of TEC to the Lambeth Conference."

The Bishop of Exeter's speech is a worrisome sign of the mind of the Archbishop, but it is understandable. He has tried as far as possible to emphasize our need not to repent of what we believe or what we believe God calls us to do but of how our pride in that belief has caused us to act "irregularly." He wants us to remain in conversation. He still wants there to be a conversation. He suspects we have much to teach to and learn from the rest of the Communion and that the crises that will test the modern world in the next decades could take advantage of the collective wisdom of the Communion's churches. The truth is, our actions affect his conscience less than the cronyism of Central Africa and whatever really is going in Nigeria, but that our actions will make it very hard for him to hold them accountable. His recent spate of interviews and his past history as a theologian make this all too clear. He seeks a catholic ecclesiology in a less-than-catholic polity. Such an ecclesiology will guide him.

I am not yet convinced this is wisdom. But I appreciate that he is beginning to bare his crook a little.

But if I'm right about his mood, matters will become very interesting:

Any break will be provisional for the time being. He's at least going to give us until he retires. He will encourage our unity by not recognizing the Network. If he really did name them after Bonhoeffer's church, I suspect he did so to warn them of future suffering rather than an easy fix. He intends a separation, not a divorce. AKMA's plans to declare allegiance to ++Rowan will be thwarted. ++Rowan is not going to create any special jurisdictions. He will not wound his ecclesiology. But that will not be a problem. On some American corners, you will see the Church of Nigeria or the Province of Southeast Asia etc. No, he will leave the mess to us as poetic justice for our autonomy.

Now please go to the beginning of the post and read Jim Naughton's comment again. I just have laid out the worst case scenario from the little evidence we have. Ultimately, the times belong to God.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that we may all be one as the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are One.

Two Brief Matters

Good Sarum Mass Site With Pictures

This link is mainly for my records.

Anglo-Catholic Boot Camp for Youth

I never went to church camp. When I was in EYC, we went out to South Dakota for a couple of weeks per year to do construction work (we built roofs and renovated and re-fenced a cemetery or two) and run a Vacation Bible School on the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation. It probably involved a little too much relativism for Mr. Foster's taste.

On the other hand, I gladly would send any potential child to something like my youth service trips or the St. Michael's Youth Conference. In the latter case, I would enjoy the mild amount of de-programming necessary afterwards.

Beautiful and True

Although the TEC calendar commemorates the three great prelatial Marian martyrs in October (and Cuthbert, Bishop of Durham this day), this is the Feast of Holy Thomas Cranmer, Archbishop and Martyr (and Patron of this Monastery). Rowan Williams gave a beautiful and insightful sermon on the occasion this morning.

Perhaps, the best part is in which ++Rowan notes that Cranmer didn't seem to have the certainty required to kill but did manage to pluck up the certainty to die. I think this is perhaps the most precise definition of epistemic humility, when faith is a matter of life and death.

(via T19).

Huh?

BBC Sunday Worship this week is not from St. George's, Belfast but from Downpatrick Cathedral. So no 1549 Communion service. Oh well. Maybe someday....

ECUSA March Madness in the Volunteer State

Or so goeth the Titusonenine thread .

One of the candidates has commented. People on the convention floor have commented. I think there's really only One Interested Party that hasn't commented (on Titusonenine, that is).

Let us pray:

ALMIGHTY and everlasting God, who by thy Holy Spirit didst preside in the Councils of the blessed Apostles, and hast promised, through thy Son Jesus Christ, to be with thy Church to the end of the world; We beseech thee to be present with the Council of thy Church assembled in thy Name and Presence within the Diocese of Tennessee. Save them from all error, ignorance, pride, and prejudice; and of thy great mercy vouchsafe, we beseech thee, so to direct, sanctify, and govern them in their present work, by the mighty power of the Holy Ghost, that the comfortable Gospel of Christ may be truly preached, truly received, and truly followed, in all places, to the breaking down the kingdom of sin; Satan, and death; till at length the whole of thy dispersed sheep, being gathered into one fold, shall become partakers of everlasting life; through the merits and death of Jesus Christ our Saviour. Amen.

BBC Sunday Worship Next Week

Will be from St. George's, Belfast. Why do I mention this? Well, they will be celebrating "The Supper of the Lorde and holy Communion, commonly called the Masse." Let the reader understand.

Cleaning Up the Links

Deletions

Normally, I don't update the links page unless I mention someone in the course of an entry. Normally, I don't remove links either. However, I have decided that I will remove links that no longer go to content. Therefore, I've taken Expectations off the sidebar. However, let me take this occasion to give my congratulations to Lucas Grubbs, who will be ordained to the Sacred Order of Priests on Saturday. For more Lucas Grubbs madness, go here....

Additions

I love Texas and I love Texans. In what other state in the Union do Pre-Revolutionary Appalachian culture and Evangelical Victorianism co-exist so amusingly and yet so frighteningly? Oh, the stories I could tell...

And that's why I'm so glad to link to two Abilene-area bloggers, both communicants at the Church of the Heavenly Rest. ACU Episcochick is just worth reading to see her profile image and serves as a portal into the Xanga-filled world of young Episcopalians (Warning: Enter at your own risk.) And Jared Cramer gives a thoughtful perspective on his life and Anglican doings from a perspective partially shaped by being raised in "the Church of Christ (a capella)."

Scotist is back! And with him came a great discussion about the key issue of the next few months: what is to be done in Columbus? Thanks to a little more Lenten discipline, I've been feeling more inclined to the promotion of Christian fundamentals (the Anglican variety). This attracted the attention of the Postulant.

The Postulant, like *Christopher, seems to be one of those Christians that confounds the wisdom of the world.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may be strengthened in the wisdom (not of the world) but in the wisdom that empowered Christ to come among us and be crucified, which the world accounts foolishness.

Concerning the Commination against Sinners

Despite having lived the entirety of my life in this era in which the 1979 BCP is the Liturgy of the Episcopal Church, the 1928 BCP was never far from me. Thanks to the Internet, the 1549 and 1662 BCPs (or the other liturgical books of the Anglican Communion) are not entirely inaccessible. And when I was in college, there was a rather rich collection to be found in the University library system. One unfortunate excision from the 1979 BCP (as compared to earlier Books) was the Commination, originally Cranmer's liturgy for Ash Wednesday in the 1549 BCP. Commination comes from the Latin comminare , which might best be translated as "to threaten oneself in the presence of others." In other words, it is a communal threatening, whose Scriptural type is located in the blessings and curses of the farewell discourse of Moses in Deuteronomy that sealed the Old Covenant in the context of that book.

The name that the liturgy took on in the reign of Elizabeth is quite appropriate. The service is extremely threatening. It begins thus ( Thanks, as always, to the Society of Archbishop Justus for keeping such resources accessible :

BRETHREN, in the prymitive churche there was a godlye disciplyne, that at the begynnyng of lente suche persones as were notorious synners, were put to open penaunce, and punished in this worlde, that theyr soules myght bee saved in the day of the lord. And that other admonished by theyr example, might he more afrayed to offende. In the steede [stead] whereof until the saide disciplyne maye bee restored agayne; (whiche thynge is muche to bee wyshed,) it is thoughte good, that at thys tyme (in your presence) shoulde bee read the general sentences of goddes Cursyng agaynste impenitente sinners.

As far as I can tell (and I suspect Derek would know better), the reference is to an ancient custom in which the notorious sinners of the church were forbidden from the congregation of the faithful (and thus the Eucharist and the other Sacraments except in hora mortis ) from Ash Wednesday to Maundy Thursday. The Holy Martyr and Patron ++Thomas Cranmer evidently desired the restoration of this custom to England. But with all due respect to him, the union of the spiritual and temporal power which he suffered to be established in the realm of England would make this scheme dangerously troublesome. The admixture of the temporal and spiritual swords naturally led to forms of civil action against the sinners and dissidents of the Church of England, which did not tend to their repentance but to their obstinancy (and in some cases, such obstinancy as would befit martyrs).

In addition, since the sixteenth century, there has grown up a greater respect for the individual conscience that would blister at such strong communal action (and potentially authoritarian and hypocritical,too). This summer, I read an article in Christianity Today about the ineffectiveness of church discipline and what could be done about it. I frankly find it symptomatic of the greatly weakened communitarian impulses of Americans as both citizens and Christians. But knowing something of the situation of the plainer Anabaptists, the old Kirk in Scotland, or the Roman Catholic Church in certain eras, there are some advantages to the greater liberty of the individual in relation to the community.

Perhaps, the most humorous example of this is a case from the medieval ecclesiastical courts in England, in which a man is summoned for having fornicated with the same woman for the third or fourth time. The man admitted his fault but claims that the court had warned him that if he offended further, he was to be whipped seven times around the cathedral. Fortunately, the court was wise enough to check the record and discover that he was supposed to be compelled to marry the woman in question. And thus it appears that the man preferred to be beaten within an inch of his life than marry his girlfriend. Or more keenly, the man tried to play on the sadistic impulses of the court in order to avoid the justice actually prescribed by the Law of God.

Thus, Cranmer's reluctant substitution for more effectual public penance may have been the cleverer idea. And since the ecclesiastical and penitential jurisdiction over the laity long has failed in England and mutated into a civil jurisdiction in North America that is not far from eroding completely, the Commination stands as a very brilliant idea for the mutual humiliation of the community on the starting line of Lent. For we are all sinners, as Paul reminds us in Romans, and our righteousness cannot come from the Law. The notorious are in as much fear and promise of mercy as the less notorious. Lutherpunk writes of the season that it is the time to put ourselves before "the mirror of the Law" and see where the blemishes are.

The curses are these [numbering mine]:

[1] CURSED is the man that maketh any carved or molten image, to worship it.

And the people shall answer and say, Amen.

Minister. [2] Cursed is he that curseth his father or mother.
Answer. Amen.
Minister. [3] Cursed is he that removeth his neighbour's landmark.
Answer. Amen.
Minister. [4] Cursed is he that maketh the blind to go out of his way.
Answer. Amen.
Minister. [5] Cursed is he that perverteth the judgement of the stranger, the fatherless, and widow.
Answer. Amen.
Minister. [6] Cursed is he that smiteth his neighbour secretly.
Answer. Amen.
Minister. [7] Cursed is he that lieth with his neighbour's wife.
Answer. Amen.
Minister. [8] Cursed is he that taketh reward to slay the innocent.
Answer. Amen.
Minister. [9] Cursed is he that putteth his trust in man, and taketh man for his defence, and in his heart goeth from the Lord.
Answer. Amen.
Minister. [10] Cursed are the unmerciful, fornicators, and adulterers, covetous persons, idolaters, slanderers, drunkards, and extortioners.
Answer. Amen.

And knowing the general hermeneutical bent of the Lord in the Gospel of Matthew, these curses are far more general and potentially metaphorical than their literal interpretations. [1] concerns our general idolatry of objects or reified persons. [4] condemns those who play on their neighbor's credulity as well as those who fool the literally blind. [6] probably covers all of the advantages we take due to our lack of accountability on the Internet. [9] is especially fun, since it also includes putting trust in ourselves more than trust in God. I like that [10] begins with the unmerciful... Do not call anyone to repentance without calling yourself all the more. Of all of these taken broadly, I am guilty. Lord have mercy.

The liturgy then continues with one of the greatest Scriptural montages I know of in all in Christian literature. It builds rhetorically with a warning that the day of the Lord is nigh, and hell following after. This is the closest thing to fire and brimstone I know of in the Anglican world. But then it turns to speak comfortable words to us, offering repentance and forgiveness through the merits of Jesus Christ. For our same Awful Judge is also our Advocate and Savior. If I ever were asked to give such a strange creature as an Anglican revival sermon it would be,

NOW seeing that all they are accursed (as the prophet David beareth witness) who do err and go astray from the commandments of God; let us (remembering the dreadful judgement hanging over our heads, and always ready to fall upon us) return unto our Lord God, with all contrition and meekness of heart; bewailing and lamenting our sinful life, acknowledging and confessing our offences, and seeking to bring forth worthy fruits of penance. For now is the axe put unto the root of the trees, so that every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God: he shall pour down rain upon the sinners, snares, fire and brimstone, storm and tempest; this shall be their portion to drink. For lo, the Lord is come out of his place to visit the wickedness of such as dwell upon the earth. But who may abide the day of his coming? Who shall be able to endure when he appeareth? His fan is in his hand, and he will purge his floor, and gather his wheat into the bam; but he will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire. The day of the Lord cometh as a thief in the night: and when men shall say, Peace, and all things are safe, then shall sudden destruction come upon them, as sorrow cometh upon a woman travailing with child, and they shall not escape. Then shall appear the wrath of God in the day of vengeance, which obstinate sinners, through the stubbornness of their heart, have heaped unto them, selves; which despised the goodness, patience, and long, sufferance of God, when he calleth them continually to repentance. Then shall they call upon me, (saith the Lord,) but I will not hear; they shall seek me early, but they shall not find me; and that, because they hated knowledge, and received not the fear of the Lord, but abhorred my counsel, and despised my correction. Then shall it be too late to knock when the door shall be shut; and too late to cry for mercy when it is the time of justice. O terrible voice of most just judgement, which shall be pronounced upon them, when it shall be said unto them, Go, ye cursed, into the fire everlasting, which is prepared for the devil and his angels. Therefore, brethren, take we heed betime, while the day of salvation lasteth; for the night cometh, when none can work. But let us, while we have the light, believe in the light, and walk as children of the light; that we be not cast into utter darkness, where is weeping and gnashing of teeth. Let us not abuse the goodness of God, who calleth us mercifully to amendment, and of his endless pity promiseth us forgiveness of that which is past, if with a perfect and true heart we return unto him. For though our sins be as red as scarlet, they shall be made white as snow; and though they be like purple, yet they shall be made white as wool. Turn ye (saith the Lord) from all your wickedness, and your sin shall not be your destruction: Cast away from you all your ungodliness that ye have done: Make you new hearts, and a new spirit: Wherefore will ye die, O ye house of Israel, seeing that I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord God? Turn ye then, and ye shall live. Although we have sinned, yet have we an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous; and he is the propitiation for our sins. For he was wounded for our offences, and smitten for our wickedness. Let us therefore return unto him, who is the merciful receiver of all true penitent sinners; assuring ourselves that he is ready to receive us, and most willing to pardon us, if we come unto him with faithful repentance; if we submit ourselves unto him, and from henceforth walk in his ways; if we will take his easy yoke, and light burden upon us, to follow him in lowliness, patience, and charity, and be ordered by the governance of his Holy Spirit; seeking always his glory, and serving him duly in our vocation with thanksgiving: This if we do, Christ will deliver us from the curse of the law, and from the extreme malediction which shall light upon them that shall be set on the left hand; and he will set us on his right hand, and give us the gracious benediction of his Father, commanding us to take possession of his glorious kingdom: Unto which he vouchsafe to bring us all, for his infinite mercy. Amen.

Next time, it's going back in, mmkay.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may spend this day in a suitable admixture of pancakes and shrivening with Aves and maple syrup.

AKMA on Justice

Read it all, it's brief.

The Reformed Review, Fall 2005, "Homosexuality and the Church"

Rev. Dr. Canon Kendall Harmon linked to this a week or so ago , and I have spent valuable procrastination time reading it.

The Edtor's note states, "The Publications Committee of Western Theological Seminary asked our writers to reflect more deeply on this challenge and what can be done about it. So they do not restate old arguments, but try to move understanding deeper and the discussion to a new level."

I am afraid that there was nothing in it I had not seen before (with one notable exception), which I will mention at the proper time. But still there is much good in it.

First, it is clear that the moderate Calvinist denominations such as the RCA and PCUSA will have a more positive and Scripturally coherent view of the status of women and their potential ecclesiastical functions in the future. Patriarchy is now a bad thing, despite being at the root of Calvin's views of polity (and certainly of his successors). And Robert Gagnon is especially insistent that his proposed Biblical critique of homosexual practice does not view homosexuals as emasculated or effeminated, because women are evil or inferior (or are ordained by nature to the sadistic use of men). Robert Van Voorst, the editor of The Reformed Review notes in his closing editorial that the Evangelical Covenant Church is very much clear in their opposition to homosexual practice and yet allows women more equality within its ecclesiastical polity. Gagnon is at his best when he points out that Greco-Roman society's growing intolerance of homosexuality during 2nd and 3rd centuries (especially in elite philosophical circles, since popular feeling oscillated rather wildly) was part and parcel of a growing appreciation of women and their potential as intellectual equals.

Second, it is also clear that few in the RCA probably are going to imitate their Dutch ancestors in this way . Even Gagnon, who is the strongest anti-homosexual voice, is only interested in being counter-cultural and supporting homosexuals in incorporating their struggles for celibacy into the general martyria of the Church. Although he feels obligated to cast doubt on the ineffectiveness of reparative therapy, Gagnon is clear that it doesn't matter, for reasons I will discuss. Celibate homosexuals are imitators of Christ in his suffering on the Cross and of Paul in his privations for the faith. His millstone is spiritual, not the temporal sword, and all more terrifying in its use in his rhetoric. His rhetoric, since he is reviewing David G. Meyers and Letha Dawson Scanzoni's What God Hath Joined Together seems primarily directed at those like me, who believe they are obligated to support fratrimony/sororimony by appeal to the Scriptures, reason, and Tradition. As far as Gagnon is concerned, those such as I have thrown out the Scriptures and really are depending on an unstable Wesleyan Quadrilateral (the "balanced" Three-Legged Stool) based on experience. And thus we are stumbling-blocks for our gay and lesbian brethren.

Gagnon's critique is one I constantly bring upon myself and place before God in prayer. But it's also a critique I find answered by God in my occasional failures to order my "sexual urges" to God's will, which are rather clear and well-known distortions of an entirely righteous desire for matrimony and children. This week I was thinking that I would like to have a child. I've never thought so seriously about this as a possibility and also realized that it is impossible in my present circumstances. If homosexuality is congenital (a position which Gagnon will not admit in full, tries to cast doubt upon, and finally discards as immaterial), my "experiential" tendencies do not lead me to suppress the Scriptural witness. Instead, they lead me to seek the telos of which committed homosexual practice could be a distortion. If there is such a telos , it will bear the fruit of the Kingdom. Most interesting is that Gagnon's proposed telos is one of suffering martyria and not that of liberation. And when I speak of liberation, I do not mean the end to homosexual urges that Gagnon suspects is impossible, I mean a transformation to something higher and in accord with God's will. In a Reformed view, Christ suffered on the Cross and was justified by God and thus rose again. Paul suffered for the faith, but he acknowledged that he, too, was liberated from being a persecutor of the Faith and transformed into "the least of the Apostles."

There is much more to say about Gagnon's piece and I will not likely say half of it in justice to him and his justified concerns that the two sides do not know enough about one another's arguments. But let us first take a look at James Brownson's piece on "Gay Unions: Consistent Witness or Pastoral Accommodation? An Evangelical Pastoral Dilemma and the Unity of the Church ." Brownson leaves us in no doubt about his assumptions and worldview, which is that God intends that human sexual expression in thought, word, and deed be limited to one man and one woman united in matrimony, which he believes is the consistent witness of Scripture "as the only final rule for faith and practice." I will not concern myself with his position, because that is not the purpose of his piece. Instead, he argues for a limited diversity of approaches to homosexuality, despite his own preference for the more conservative one. The table on the fifth page is a useful summary of possible approaches to gays and lesbians by Christian communities, only suffering from the difficulties of using "consistent witness" to describe the conservative position.

Brownson's most fascinating argument is that the orientation/behavior distinction in conversations about homosexuality is a theologically false and culturally imposed one. In other words, those who are homosexually oriented are often in sinning in thought, if not in word and deed, and the church must be more supportive than asking whether one is celibate or not, since that is not the totality of chastity. Brownson is perhaps more charitable than I pose him,

"It may be easier for heterosexuals to understand [ the question of to what extent homosexual Christians should be homosocial] if they recall their own state before finding a mate and becoming married. In that state, a great deal of emotional energy is devoted to meeting and interacting with people of the opposite sex, who hold a great deal of interest. Not all of this interest is overtly, or even covertly, sexual in character. Heterosexual men like to talk with women, to joke with them, admire them, touch them, and interact with them. Heterosexual women may spend a good bit of time thinking about the men who interest them, contemplating what it would be like to be with them and to experience life together. These men and women find those of the opposite sex interesting, attractive, engaging, enjoyable to be with, stimulating. They find that being with those of the other sex calls the best out of them and inhibits some of their less than desirable characteristics. In other words, the process of falling in love is about a whole lot more than just sexual attraction, even though that may be a significant part of it."

and also:

How is the church to advise those gays for whom reparative therapy has failed, and for whom celibacy is experienced as an overwhelming burden? Here is where two distinct paths begin to diverge from each other, and difficult choices must be made—choices that are, in many respects, mutually exclusive of each other. But before exploring these two paths, it is worth making an observation about our context that must be addressed clearly as we consider these questions. We address these questions from a North American cultural context that is sexually saturated, and which upholds sexual expression as a kind of inalienable right—even an obligation. Our society devotes itself almost fanatically to the cultivation and stimulation of desire: desire primarily for goods and services, but also for sexual fulfillment (often associated with the marketing of various goods and services which will enhance sexual fulfillment, from music to clothing to automobiles to enhancements to one’s physical attractiveness). We are trained from birth onward to see ourselves as creatures with needs and to see the meaning of life as the meeting of our needs. It is not coincidental that, in such a narcissistic society, we experience enormous sexual pain and brokenness: escalating divorce, abuse, loneliness, and hurt. We must recognize that, regardless of how we interpret the will of God for the sexual expression of gays and lesbians, we come to this question from a culture that generally handles its sexuality quite badly, conceiving sexuality almost exclusively as a means to self-fulfillment, in contrast to the biblical linking of sexuality with faithfulness and fruitfulness. Our culture is not wise on this subject, and Christian perspectives on the subject may well appear rather odd to those not formed by Christian practices.

It's a nice warning and one I've heard from other Anglicans, but Brownson starts to worry me when he says, "Secondly, while there are clearly ways in which all people are called to celibacy, at least for periods of time (e.g., before marriage, or after the death of a spouse, or when one is unable to marry for a variety of reasons, or during a spouse’s illness, etc.), there are also indications in Scripture suggesting that celibacy may be easier for some than for others over the long haul. [And for others a burden]"

A discourse on the joys or burdens of celibacy are hard for me to receive from a Calvinist theologian, when Calvinism brought to these shores a very poisonous view of society in which unmarried persons (of even advanced age) are perpetual children within church and state (and must always be under the supervision of the married). To some extent, this has been moderated. There's at least one unmarried woman RCA pastor to be found on the blogosphere. But maintaining a strong concern for the sexual purity of the Body and rejecting homosexual practice as Brownson does inevitably leads to the infantilization of gays and lesbians, who will of necessity be problematized by the community. Are such persons likely to be ordained (if called)? Will their membership in the community be dependent on how much they suppress their homosocial rather than their homosexual tendencies?

To be plainer about what I mean, I think there would be one element of a more conservative Protestant denomination that would attract me: the community would be concerned by my singleness and try to fix me up with "nice, Christian girls." You may laugh. It is a highly idealized view and probably ridiculous. But for a man of my age, I suspect there at least would be subtle pressure for me to get married, so that I would be "safe" and for my wife to have babies to boost the membership rolls (hat tip to Internet Monk for that cynical view...) There is no formalized tradition of lifelong celibates in this context. Now imagine a population of those who are necessarily lifelong celibates, who probably cannot be made "safe." Even if you accept Gagnon's numbers, there might be 10 of these in a community of 500. What are they to do? Place each under the supervision of a deacon or elder as an "accountability partner" and "second family?" That would be the Puritan way (...the non-violent Puritan way).

But Brownson at least is cognizant that his vision is incomplete and is willing to admit local diversity of pastoral practice as long as his basic postulate about the Scriptural view is honored, noting " The path of consistent witness can easily devolve into congratulatory self-righteousness, hypocrisy, or a narrow and unbiblical concern with behavior only, to the neglect of the redemption of the whole person. (And most churches committed to this position can point to little effective ministry to and with gays and lesbians.)" If only Brownson would be more challenged by this last observation. Fruitfulness after all is a general theological consideration, not just one of sexual ethics.

I am afraid to tell you that Brownson is only one of three voices in this issue. The majority of the pages are dedicated by Robert Gagnon's "Why the Disagreement Over the Biblical Witness on Homosexual Practice? A Response to Myers and Scanzoni, What God Has Joined Together?" It would be unjust for me to respond point by point to this extended critique of a work of obvious weakness, since I have not read Gagnon's meisterwerk The Bible and Homosexuality. What I know of it comes from Gray Temple's critique of it, which is strongly focused on Gagnon reading Founcault in the very ways that Gagnon constantly complains liberals read him. Having read this extended piece of Gagnon, I am inclined to find a little time and go to Fuller to read it.

But first I would like to point out the surprising moment in the whole issue, in which Gagnon refers to Ham's rape of Noah as evidence of the general anti-homosexuality of the J source in the Torah. What? Ham raped Noah? Apparently, this is not original to Gagnon. But it was surprising as it stretches the "plain meaning of the Scriptures" in fascinating ways. Why would J, who is after all so very clear about the intentions of the men of Sodom, not be clear that the reviled ancestor of the reviled Canaanites "lay with his father Noah." Why make it so euphemistic using the verb "to see?" Unfortunately, this is not Gagnon's point.

Gagnon's guiding point is that sexual dimorphism is a clear and uncontroversial fundamental underpinning of the natural order ordained by God and expounded in the Holy Scriptures and that any sexual act or desire that would diminish the dualism and complementarity of men and women is abomination (to'evah) against God. He argues that this is the consistent Biblical witness and the fundamental truth to which all Scripture that condemns homosexual acts points. Homosexuality thus is worse than polyamory and heterosexual incest though better than bestiality in Gagnon's ordering of sexual sins. But he argues that many who support fratrimony and sororimony really promote polyamory and incest (and pedophilia and ephebophilia, to boot). Briefly, I thought that Gagnon should become a Wicca, since he projects the fundamental principle of sexual dimorphism and complementarity on the Scriptures so strongly and yet rejects misogyny so firmly that his sexually dimorphic view of human beings might lead him to conclude that we are made in the image of a goddess as well as a god. Fortunately, that feeling passed.

My first critique, however, would be the fundamental principle in itself, which is not as evident in nature as the ancients thought. Gagnon is somewhat responsive to this, contemning studies of "gay sheep" but generally trying to make it clear that nature cannot be any standard for us since there is pedophilia in the animal world as well. To this I reply that in modern North American culture, we regard it as pedophilia and thus especially reprehensible for a twentysomething to marry or have intercourse with a twelve year old. This view is quite new and probably stems from the proto-Victorian revolution in both attitudes toward sexuality and childhood that took place during the 19th century. Thus, it is very hard to define "pedophilia" in the animal world. As I have written before: God's gift of reason to us can transform the dictates of natural law from merely functional relations to those that participate in the work of God, though after the Fall, this was possible only through joint participation with Christ.

Next, I am very wary of Gagnon's exposition of the Old Testament on this issue, which on one hand, acknowledges the strong association of homosexuality with Canaanite religious practice and thus idolatry and apostasy, but yet attempts to say that the Old Testament prohibitions really rest on an understanding of complementarity and not the fear of idolatry. Gagnon does not help my path through his argument by being very historicritical and talking about the importance of J's views on homosexuality. I don't really care what J thinks about homosexuality. I do care what God thinks and how He legislated for man in the covenant with Israel. And except by suggesting that homosexuality is set out as the summa culpa of the Levitical code, Gagnon cannot divorce the prohibitions of homosexuality from the discourse of religious fidelity in which the prophets place them no matter how ingeniously he quotes Ezekiel. He also makes no mention of the homosocial and potentially homosexual covenant relationship of David and Jonathan. And the eunuchs of Isaiah feature nowhere. I am quite willing to be corrected on this. No doubt, these issues are dealt with in his meisterwerk . But this piece is so critical of his opposition that you would think he might take down the prophetic inspiration of folks like me a peg. And if you make absolutist statements about the Biblical witness, you should be careful to torpedo the chief contradictory arguments. Perhaps, I missed them in the voluminous footnotes, which likely are an excellent guide to further reading of Gagnon's works.

But it is his reading of the Lord Jesus with which I take most exception. Gagnon is very clear to condemn the view that Jesus was soft on sin (and sexual sin), which is a myth likely first composed by the Pharisees. But I would like to take this opportunity to warn Gagnon that he is vulnerable here. He is right that Jesus was very clear to proclaim the Gospel to the Samaritan Woman at the Well in John 4 in terms both of promise and of condemnation. So why in Luke 7, does the Lord not tell the Centurion a few things... If you don't know what I'm talking about: read the passage. The kicker is 7:6 and 7:7. The Centurion says that he is not worthy that Jesus come under his roof. Why? Because he is a Gentile? Possibly. And that seems to be Jesus' emphasis, since He says that he has not found such faith in Israel. But let's read further, "speak the word and my servant shall be healed." The Greek and the Latin Vulgate, however, use the words pais and puer , which connote children. Pais is used for the little girl Jesus heals later in Luke. When the elders of the local synagogue come to Jesus, we hear of doulos (a slave) in indirect discourse. Yet in the centurion's voice, the slave becomes "my boy" or "my child." Now if you know your Greco-Roman funerary epigraphy, you'll know that there are cases in which young slaves become so much part of the family that they become their master's children in all but legal status and are presumably freed if they reach the age when manumission is permitted by law. Perhaps, the centurion's slave was one such case.

Moreover, what other implication could there be? Surely, the elders would have not consulted Jesus about healing the centurion's "sex slave." Well, he did pay for the synagogue. I understand that this passage is hotly debated. But Gagnon's failure to mention it here is striking. It's a clear opportunity for Gagnon to fit the Gospels fully into his case in this specific essay by dispensing with the notion that the centurion could have said, "Speak the word and my darling shall be healed." Let me note that I am not suggesting that Jesus by silence was promoting sexual exploitation of slaves in the Greco-Roman world. We don't know anything about the relationship dynamics here, except that the faith of the centurion saves "his pais " as in other healing stories. In other words, the slave is not emotionally dispensable. Whether he was treated as a child or a lover, Jesus couldn't say no to a man with such faith in his power.

There is one point at which Gagnon essentially says of the Lord that he must have condemned homosexuality in his heart if not in his lips, since there was no Jew in the centuries surrounding his earthly life who had anything good to say about it. If Gagnon is to make such arguments, I also know of no other Jew of the day who claimed to be the Son of God and claimed that he would rise to life three days after his death. I know of no other Jew of his day who promised abundant life or claimed that He was 'the Bread of Life." Some claimed to be the Messiah. But Jesus' claims were uniquely extraordinary.

Finally, Gagnon exegetes the Apostle. I take major issue with him on two counts. First, Gagnon talks about possible Hellenistic influences on Paul in understanding the intrinsic nature of homosexual orientation. Paul, Gagnon insists, might think that homosexuality was congenital but think that it didn't matter to his position. This is wrong. Paul might know of some philosophical opinions on the aetiology of homosexuality from Platonic sources. But this was no guarantor that he would have received them as true. If Gagnon is right to say that Paul was insistent on sexual complementarity as the uniquely fundamental principle of human sexual practice, it is unlikely that the Apostle would have received Aristophanes' speech in Symposium as of any merit whatsoever. Gagnon's strongest argument of the essay appears in this context, in which Gagnon notices a homology of usage and analogy of rhetoric between the ends of Romans 1 and Genesis 1.

But the rest of this is weak. When Gagnon alludes to "para physin," he fails to mention the other key use of the idea of "nature" in Romans. It's too bad. Gagnon is so insistent that we place Romans 1 in the context of Paul's discussion of grace and justification up to Romans 6. But in Romans 11, we are told that the church is an unnatural graft on the tree of salvific covenant with God. Gray Temple somewhere or other makes a great witticism, which I will paraphrase, if homosexuality is unnatural, likewise is our salvation. Of course, this is merely a witticism. But there is a deeper point here. Paul is very much a Judao-Hellenistic thinker in the mold of Philo, and thus it is very easy for him to pipe the tune of the corruption of the idolaters as opposed to the righteousness of the Jews. It is indeed necessary, for the rhetorical purpose of Paul is to turn the righteousness of Israel on its head, for just as the Greeks mock God and nature, so do the Jews mock God and the Covenant. Paul thus is playing on the homophobia of Israel, who as the Rambam (Maimonides) says much later, "Israel is not suspected of homosexuality." Philo actually says something very similar. Is the homology that Gagnon cites then really Paul's? Might it be from an earlier Judaeo-Hellenistic source? After all, it is a homology in Greek. And thus might it just be possible that it is purely rhetorical and is not some considered statement on complementarity?

On the second count, I take great issue with Gagnon's speculation that if we brought Paul here and informed him that homosexuality was congenital, he would say, "I suspected as much." We also would have to tell him about certain difficulties in his understanding of Original Sin, if the Apostle can be said to have such a notion. In other words, homosexuality's presence in nature suggests it was prior to the Fall. See why I say creationists have it easy. If the Lord gives me the opportunity, I hope to talk with both Gagnon and the Apostle about this particular issue.

What do the Scriptures say? To a great extent, Gagnon reads them correctly or at least more correctly than those he poses as his opponents. His counterpoint against the misogynistic argument is one to read, learn, and inwardly digest. But nowhere does he take on the more difficult passages (I Samuel 18, or Isaiah 56:8 with Matthew 19:10 and Acts 8:27 etc.) that might complicate his view of homosexuality or marriage in general. In some sense, Gagnon is merely a renovator of "the clobber passages." And sometimes he's merely ridiculous. Not every use of "dog" in the Bible refers to male prostitutes, for instance.

The issue closes with an editorial by Van Voorst on the future of the RCA and homosexuality. It is of interest than Van Voorst is clearly the most open of the three authors in the issue to the possibility that homosexual orientation is set from birth and immutable, but he is clear that his theological tradition presents a quandary,

"7. Our dialogue should deal with what I call the two hard facts of this debate. First, as Robert Gagnon argues in this Reformed Review issue and as RCA policy papers have stated, the Bible affirms heterosexuality as God’s norm for human life, and rejects homosexual practice as running against this norm. A growing number in the academic field of religious studies and in the church—even those who advocate same-sex liberation—now are intellectually honest enough to admit that this is the case.4 But discerning what the Bible says about homosexuality has not been a problem for us in the RCA; discerning how to use the Bible is a growing problem. However, a Reformed approach to Scripture does not allow us to neutralize the Bible’s affirmation of heterosexuality, which is clear, consistent and comprehensive, by making room alongside it for same-sex practice. A second “hard fact” is that for most same-sex oriented people, their orientation is not consciously, deliberately chosen. A strong consensus among scientists holds that it is deeply rooted in personality. For most same-sex oriented people their orientation probably cannot be changed, and their calling to live chaste lives can only be enacted by a combination of divine power and great human effort. How to relate these two hard facts should be a part of our dialogue. Some say that science rules out Scripture, others that Scripture rules out science. Perhaps a better path is to let God’s voice in Scripture have its rule among us as we continue to live by “Sola Scriptura,” but let God’s voice in nature help to inform us about how we can best relate to same-sex oriented people among us."

This sets up a sad dualism that denies the unity of all truth that I believe lies at the root of my own tradition. If God speaks through nature, He says the same things that he does in the Scriptures. Or at least, the accounts of nature and Scripture are complementary even if they appear contradictory. But at least it expresses some desire to learn better how to care for gays and lesbians in a Reformed Christian community.

So was the issue worth reading? Yes. It was good to read perspectives that were less easy to impute with the leaven of malice and sometimes show evidence of the same general struggle, buoyant certainty, and frustrating uncertainty of one's own reasoning on this issue. It was good to read Robert Gagnon and get some appreciation of his methods and biases. Thanks to the Titusoneine commentariat for recommending this and to Kendall+ for linking to this issue.

Until next time, the Holy Brothers pray that you may read the Holy Scriptures to your profit, gaining for yourself refined gold that will never rust and oil on your eyes that will restore your sight.

Notes From ILEOS

No Juggling Acts Here

From the Sunday bulletin wherein is also contained the liturgy of the parish:

"[The junior high Christian education group] will meet in the Jr. High Room. Topic: The Book of Common Prayer: It's in the pew rack but do we know what's in it? Let's take a look.

We're Doing All Right These Days

It was Annual Meeting time at ILEOS recently. The meeting is split into two separate sessions on two succeeding Sundays of approximately one hour duration each. For someone used to four hour Annual Meetings at a stretch, this was a pleasant surprise. On my desk, there is now a beautifully printed volume focused on the missional activities of the parish and its finances. There is no membership information, but since I am still not sure whether ILEOS conforms to the Membership Canons of TEC, I don't think there would be anything interesting. [It actually no longer matters whether it conforms or not, because I voted in the Annual Meeting by voice. There was no need to do anything else.] Needless to say, I am now able to make a good assessment of the financial health of the parish.

There is a meme of the conservative side of the church in many denominations that goes like this: Liberal churches are bleeding membership and running themselves financially into the ground, because the current generation of churchgoers are counter-cultural, "politically incorrect," and wants the "good, ol' time religion." The mainlines have become "the church of the old" and "the church of the dying." They are living off their endowments: the wealth of past generations who would decry their support of aberrant behavior and treason to the gospel.

The more reasonable version of this is that the TEC is very good at attracting middle-aged women and other types of "older seekers," typically childless or with grown children. But it is not good at attracting families with young children.

So I thought I would test these hypotheses against the available data.

First, ILEOS is in excellent financial shape. Its greatest asset is its buildings and property, which are assessed at O($20 million). [I will use the O() notation throughout. It means "on the order of," i.e., approximately.) It derives some income from this but not extraordinary amounts and has to pay taxes on income from its parking lots (used by shoppers during the week). In a Hollywood touch for this very Hollywood church, there was less income than usual from filming on campus. There has been construction about. (My university, on the other hand, has been cleaning up on this kind of income but we unfortunately have shortfalls elsewhere.)

Its endowment is surprisingly small, less than $1 million, which surprised me greatly. I'm used to smaller churches with $1-2 million or up to $5 million for a very Anglo-Catholic parish. The budget surplus over the last four years is more than half of the endowment. And thus if we examine the P/E ratio of ecclesiastical economy (the pledge income/endowment income ratio), we find it to be about 138. So much for living off your disapproving parents. Now admittedly, the buildings are likewise the patrimony. But much of the campus was built when this was clearly an untraditional parish.

Now I know that none of this matters. When the Lord comes, we are not to be measured favorably by our assets or our pledges. But instead we hear in Revelation of Laodicea, "How rich I am! What a fortune I have made! I have everything I want.' In fact, though you do not realize it, you are a pitiful wretch, poor, blind and naked. I advise you to buy from me gold refined in the fire to make you truly rich, and white robes to put on to hide the shame of your nakedness, and ointment for your eyes that you may see." But I didn't start the money meme. Laodicea could be as much Houston or Plano or indeed the entire United States.

There is one more financial element I want to examine: pledging units and pledge amount. The number of units has remained relatively steady, fluctuating O(6%) in the last few years. The rector and vestry are aiming for an 8% increase next year. People do keep coming through the doors. I also should note that the difference between the number of pledge units and the maximum pledge number is O(300). This might be an indicator of communal health more than financial health. We also apparently have pledge units in distant cities. People who were introduced to TEC or Christianity by ILEOS often say that they never find a church quite like it or as comfortable again. Some of these units come to ILEOS only on holidays when they visit their relatives. The total number of these units likely small. But I've never heard of a church before where the C+Es (Christmas and Easter worshippers) pledge. Of additional interest is that the pledge amount has increased O(20%) since 2002. This I understand is a trend throughout TEC. Even as we have been bleeding membership since GC2003, the amounts pledged have outpaced inflation.

The most hopeful news I heard at ILEOS' Annual Meeting, however, did not concern finances. It concerned the Sunday School and Youth Group numbers. ILEOS has several staff responsible for children and youth, including Youth Pastors for Senior High and Junior High. The Junior High Youth Pastor actually appears to be my age and recently graduated from a local small Christian college. This investment seems to have paid off. Sunday School enrollment is up 60% or so. And the Youth Group (Sunday mornings and Wednesday nights) is so popular that they are overcrowding their designated space. The Rector feels this is one justification for a new building. I have to agree. And more importantly, this is a sign that ILEOS is attracting families with young children who will be rooted and grounded in love with us. And yes, some of these families are headed by gay or lesbian parents. It sometimes seems as if ILEOS is a church of aging hippies, but there are signs that it cannot remain that way for long.

Vestry and Diocesan Convention delegation elections were smooth voice votes on slates presented by a Nominating Committee. It was somewhat amusing hearing that the Diocesan Convention delegation is full of people who "like to stir things up." The vestry, like all vestries I know, is rather lawyer-heavy but seems to be good stewards of the church's goods. It's also a diverse crowd: men, women, blacks, whites, Hispanics, gays, lesbians. They even have a youth member (16 years old or so), who serves a one-year term. In the parish where I was a teenager, this would be an impossibility (by law, I think, but they could have allowed someone a voice if not a vote). It's funny being intermediate in age between the youngest and next oldest vestry member.

OK. The question to ask now is what's wrong. There is no perfect community but the Triune God.

1. I have concerns about the liturgy of the church. This church can make even me happy-clappy, which I enjoy... The congregation sometimes applauds the sermon. These are good things or minor irritances. My major concerns are the omission of the Nicene Creed and the General Confession. We also could stand to read the Epistle more often and hear a Psalm more than once a month. I can cope. I've taken to silent recitation of the Nicene Creed after the sermon. I've also taken to picking up the BCP at certain points during the service for the recitation of appropriate private prayers, including the Prayer of Humble Access (I started doing this after a mangled celebration of Rite I a few months ago). I've also taken to being shriven from England, a situation that simultaneously acknowledges the transcendence of God and the Sacraments over space and time and demeans the incarnation at the heart of the Christian religion. At some point, I really need to talk to the Associate with responsibility over this, but I am still praying about the most humble, amicable, and Christian way to broach the subject. Let's not even think about the project to compose new liturgies and creeds. I've heard neither hide nor hair of it since I first heard of it.

To some extent, ILEOS does honor the most important concerns. In the key exception to their rather radical use of inclusive language, they baptize in the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit +. This is nearly the only time when the "legal name" of the Trinity is heard in the church. As much as I hope this inconsistency stems from a desire to honor the concerns of "the weaker brethren" (like me...), I wonder how long this can last.

2. I have concerns about Christian education. I have heard the historic Creeds are criticized by the Rector in the new member classes. Having been catechized traditionally, academically, and liberally, I have to say that I prefer tradition. I prefer to know what Christians generally have believed before learning about the messiness of it all. I will never be able to say that "for two thousand years, Christians have believed X," but I am able in most cases to know and usually to justify the majority opinion. ILEOS shows an interest in bringing its peculiar brand of the Faith to the world. Its best leaven, however, lies in its parishioners, who often have opportunity to witness. Let't just say I think good catechesis might make it easier for parishioners to be leaven throughout TEC and make it hard for, um, Al Mohler to make critiques. Some days, I wish I had double-concentrated in Early Christian Literature and had some more time for ILEOS, so that I could offer Sunday morning forums on some historical theology or the wonders of the Book of Common Prayer. As it is, I feel like a half-read and half-trained wretch, who should read fewer novels and more theology. (Unfortunately, I don't do much novel-reading lately).

In summary, ILEOS often seems to be a church of the wounded. So many people I know have been harmed by other Christian communities. To some extent, such harms can be healed with soft words and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost. At other times, the wounded should be equipped with the armor of God so they cannot be so easily wounded. And, hey, it's entirely possible that ILEOS' clergy might discover that their parishioners might like their theology a little more traditionally grounded.

In summary, thanks to be God through Our Lord Jesus Christ that I have come to this place and may my going hence leave it better than my coming thither. AMEN

In my next entry, I think I will be taking on the new issue of the Reformed Review on homosexuality. So pray brethren...

Disturbing News from the Diocese of Albany

From a comment to this post.

"I returned 20 minutes ago from a diocesan church leadership workshop for the Episcopal Diocese of Albany. What I heard and observed there was an Institute of Religion and "Democracy" exhortation. The bishop used the phrase, One Church, (an IRD phrase) over and over again. His audience moaned, cried hallalujah, and murmured Amen. A local leader in the Cusillo movement was given 15 minutes to describe the success of the movement in the New York Capital district. We were sternly warned to pray ceaselessly to keep evil and Satan from entering our churches.
There was not one word about valuing diverse voices in the Episcopal Church In America. The Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, which is treasured by American Episcopalians, was held up before the audience as a laughable relic of the past by the bishop. My husband, a cradle Episcopalian moderate who has been fairly ignorant about this issue till today, came away offended by the inherent censorship of the One Church (IRD) diatribe and the inherent insult of people who love Episcopal tradition.

When I asked someone who was involved in the planning of the event about diocesan connection to the IRD, they said they didn't know if it was directly connected but "...isn't Diana Knippers our Anglican leadership in the IRD?" (Rarely do moderate and progressive laymen and clergymen know the term IRD, or the name, Diana Knippers)

This is the way the Radical Right eats into the mainline churches. They know they can't come straight out with their dominionist agenda, but they keep moving the spiritually and politically ignorant further into their camp by isolating progressives and moderate voices within the fold.

It was a day well spent. I found out how the convention is loaded with conservatives and conservative issues. Now it remains to be seen if there is a body of people serious enough to effectively alter this state of affairs. "

Dianne Knippers died of cancer last year. Many progressive Episcopalians pray for her soul in obedience to the commandment, "Pray for your enemies. Bless those who curse you." That said, I would like to see a transcript of this meeting. I find it hard to believe that someone was trashing the Book of Common Prayer in general (the 1979 BCP is another matter).

Holy Thomas Cranmer, through your hand the Lord gave the beauty of common prayer to the English people. And that same hand you severed from yourself with fire in obedience to the commandment on account of your sin. Pray with us for all those of any stripe who disdain the Liturgy of the Anglican churches. In the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Amen.