The hired hand

I've written about this before. This passage and its meanings have been on my mind quite a bit, lately.

The Gospel of John 10:1-8 describes the true shepherd versus the hired man. Jesus is the good shepherd who loves and protects his sheep.

"I have come so that they may have life and have it to the full. I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd lays down his life for his sheep. The hired man, since he is not the shepherd and the sheep do not belong to him, abandons the sheep as soon as he sees a wolf coming, and runs away, and then the wolf attacks and scatters the sheep; he runs away because he is only a hired man and has no concern for the sheep."

The metaphor of the shepherd is perhaps the most meaningful one in the Bible, and perhaps the most beautiful in all literature. The shepherd is the one who guides and protects, who literally lays himself down at the sheep gate to protect his flock from nighttime predators. The good shepherd is the one who clears rocks to provide a green meadow full of life sustaining food for his flock. The good shepherd is the one who cleanses harmful parasites from his sheep, literally anointing their heads with oil.

The good shepherd is the one who speaks to his sheep, and sings to them, so they recognize his voice out of all the other voices, and follow him to safety.

The good shepherd is the one who does not leave even the least one behind, but carries him close to his heart.

I love my Shepherd.

Contrast this image of the shepherd to the hired hand, the one to whom sheep are sheep. They're not too smart, but they're a source of income. The hired hand counts them as nothing compared to his own needs and wants.

The role of the bishop is modeled on the role of the good shepherd.

The good shepherd does not trust a man with his flock because the man says the things the shepherd wants to hear, or because the man promises the shepherd a good job working for the hired man's boss. The good shepherd doesn't turn his flock over to anyone who would treat his sheep carelessly, or abandon in the wilderness any of the sheep the hired hand perceives to have a blemish.

Angry sheep

I'm just a sheep, but I know who cares and who doesn't care about me. I don't want a hired hand looking after me.

Most of the time, I'm a nice little sheep. But don't try herding me into any foreign corral, where the hired hands won't take care of me, and might even kick me.


I'm just a sheep, but I can scream loudly, and I have teeth. I'll chew through the rope holding the corral gate shut.

Pirates of the Anglican Communion:
Dead Man's Province, Part Quatre

Note: To read Part 1, go here. For Part 2, go here; For Part 3, go here.

After traveling through a dry, barren wasteland for many hours, the Band of the Three-Legged Stool slows as its members approach a river.

Bishop Schori holds up her hand in the universal sign for "stop." On foot, she, Father Jake and Sparrow cautiously approach a rough, wooden bridge spanning the river. It's old, and worn, and bleached white with age. Beneath it, sluggish black water oozes past.

The smell wafting up from the water is rank. It tells a tale of dead things, of decay, of lost hope.

Schori turns to Jake and Sparrow and asks, "Will this bridge carry our weight?"

The two men gingerly step on the first plank. It creaks, but holds.

"Perhaps we should cross it one rider and one horse at a time," Sparrow says.

They stand staring into the sludgy water. The smoky mist rising from it seems to fill the land on the far bank.

Jake understands why MadPriest looked so drawn. As the band drew deeper into the wasteland, an oppression settled over him like a shroud. He felt it pushing him down, as if into the earth itself. The pinched expressions around him tell him others are suffering from it, too.

Jake shakes his head, trying to jar loose the sense of doom.

Schori looks at him with concern.

"We must pray before we take another step," she says.

Schori calls the entire band together. They stand hand in hand, or hand on shoulder, head bowed, as she prays, "Dear mother God, look after us as a hen looks after her chicks. Shield us from danger under your wing. Bless us that we may accomplish your will here, in this strange land. Bless us that we may then return home safely."

She anoints each rider and each horse, and pronounces individual benedictions. Then she approaches the convoy of vehicles.

"I don't think your trucks and vans will make it across this bridge. I don't know what we'll find on the other side. What say you; do you wish to turn back?"

"We stand together," Jeffrey says. "We will not turn back."

"Lisa the Crucifer will hold high the cross. It will be as a beacon for us," he adds.

Lisa, dressed in white, steps forward with determination, holding the cross before her. Its golden light radiates around her.

"Very well," Schori says. "Onward. I'll go first. If it's safe, you, Jake, then Sparrow, then Lisa, then the rest of the horse riders, then those on foot. Remember, one at a time."

Sparrow says, "No, milady. My charge is to protect you, and bring you safely to Lambeth Palace. I cannot let you perish here, in this unholy water." He looks down at it with disgust. "I will go first, and make sure the bridge can be safely passed."

After a bit of arguing and a coin toss with Jake to settle the argument of who will go first, Sparrow proceeds.

Cautiously, he steps onto the bridge, holding his horse's reins. The horse follows hesitantly, with a little nicker of anxiety.

The bridge creaks ominously. The horse's eyes roll with fright, white showing all around.

Sparrow takes another couple of steps. One board breaks, but he and the horse scramble past it. They make it to the misty land on the other side.

The horse's flanks continue to tremble in fear.

Sparrow removes a coil of rope from his saddlebag.

"Jake," he calls. "Catch this. Wrap the middle of it 'round Bishop Schori, and hold fast your end, until she's safe across the river."

"Aye," says Jake. He carefully girdles Schori with the rope, then cinches the end of the rope's length around the saddle horn on his horse, for good measure.

Everyone holds their breath until Schori arrives safely on the other side. Sparrow and Jake hold the rope so tightly, her feet barely touched the planks as she crosses.

Schori loosens the rope around her and wheezes in a gulp of air.

Her horse, like Sparrow's, quivers in fear.

Jake ties the rope around Lisa, then, holding her elbow, he escorts her across the bridge. His horse follows closely behind him.

Another plank breaks, and the horse slides toward the edge, scrambling for footing. Jake pulls on the reins with all his strength, and the horse stops. The animal then follows Jake so closely his nose stays under Jake's arm, as they complete their tortuous journey.

One-by-one, the remainder of the band cross the bridge.

"It's only your prayers got us all here safe," Sparrow says, bowing to the bishop, who bows back to him.

He hears a cracking of twigs in the woods lining the road. Sparrow draws his sword as he turns toward the sound, but it's too late. A horde of screaming Fundamentalists attack the band, beating them with Bibles.


Sparrow senses danger, draws his sword, but it's too late.




Sparrow sees Jake, Schori, Jeffrey, and the rest valiantly trying to repel the blows, but in this place, they're vastly outnumbered. Growly screams, quoting Leviticus and Deuteronomy, are almost as terrorizing as the two-handed swings with heavy Bibles.

Under the hail of thumps to his head, Sparrow falls to the ground, unconscious.

What will happen to our intrepid band? Will it survive this attack?

Be sure to tune in for the next episode of Pirates of the Anglican Communion.

Elvis Rex: There oughta be a law

Note from UnSaintly Pat:
I was going to write my Sunday-evening installment of Pirates of the Anglican Communion, but went fishing instead. Elvis took a turn at the blog while I was gone.

Elvis speaks:

I'm looking for a lawyer. I want to sue, and I'm thinking there's maybe a class-action suit in this for a good lawyer.

It all started last week, when the UnSaintly One went to see an allergy doctor. After a bunch of testing, the verdict came in. The UnSaintly One's allergic to two things, he told her: dust .... and CATS.

Now, I've been thinking about this all week. I'm convinced this is a lie -- more cat defamation. Cats get blamed for everything. Did the dog get blamed for any allergy? No.

Is it ever the dog? No. Did the doctor tell her to keep Betsy, the dog, off the bed? No.

Who's sleeping on the bed now? The dog.

Even the UnSaintly One says, "Betsy's the good girl."

But Jack and I, we're the "bad boys." Just because the furniture gets clawed up -- and that's Jack, not me. So we jump around in the kitchen while she's trying to cook, and knock things off the counter. Knock things off her desk. Chew up and tear up a few things. Yak on the carpet. Pull down the sheers from the window. Big deal.

I don't see why the UnSaintly One minds me drinking from her glass. It's a cat thing.

Let's face it. We live in an anti-cat culture. Think of all the Disney movies. The cat is always the bad guy. Remember the cat in Cinderella? Portrayed as evil, trying to harm those poor little mice. Mice aren't so cute in real life, though I hear they're pretty tasty.

And remember the sicko Siamese in Lady and the Tramp? The list goes on. Just about every animated Disney movie has a cat villain.

The anti-cat movement goes back to the Middle Ages, when we were blamed for the plague.

So, I want a lawyer to go after not just the doctor, who suggested the UnSaintly One should make us yard cats (thank God she didn't), but let's go after the studios, books and magazines, too, on behalf of all cats, everywhere.

Welcome to the neighborhood

We welcome Toewalker at Musings of a Toe-Walker and Lisa at My Manner of Life to this neck of the blogosphere neighborhood.

These Missouri thorns in the right-wing side bring their lives, perspectives and dry wit with 'em.

We in the UnSaintly household particularly enjoyed this image:



You wouldn't expect a furor over something like this, but the Network Purity Police, Midwestern Division, jumped all over Lisa for posting it, accusing her of making racial slurs. Get a life, people.

The truth is, they were looking for something to complain about, without revealing their own prejudices. Thus, revealing their own prejudices.

You've got to admit, the term "Anglican Primates" does create a mental image of our closest relations (now I'll get hate mail from the Creationists) jumping around in robes and mitres!

Lisa and Toewalker have much more than this to say, both humorously and seriously. Check them out.

Pirates of the Anglican Communion:
Dead Man's Province, Part Trois

Note: To read Part 1, go here. For Part 2, go here.

MadPriest

rides his horse all the way up to the command post before dismounting. He's immediately beset with questions. Brushing the queries aside, he grabs the coffeepot, fills a mug, and downs it.

"You need everything you've got to keep you going out here," he says.

"Sit down and rest for a moment. Are you all right?" Schori asks.

"Yes. I'm exhausted. It's that place," MadPriest replies. "It's oppressive. With each mile into that Godforsaken land, the air became heavier. Stifling."

"What about the horses? Where's your Geo Tracker?" Father Jake queries.

"I had to abandon the Geo Tracker about five miles in. It just quit. No modern invention works there. Even my watch quit, a bit after the Geo sputtered out. Then the watch started running backwards," MadPriest says, holding his watch up for them to see.

The watch hands jumped erratically, forward and back.

"I think it's trying to right itself now," MadPriest explains.

"Were you able to determine where Province X is? And where we are?" Father Jake asks.

"Maps are useless there. I think it's somewhere in Texas." MadPriest rubs his face. "Although, there were some indicators of Nigeria. It's all very confusing. Where we are now? Just in a wasteland, on the edge of Province X."

"Listen," MadPriest continues. "Most of the people there are confused. They don't know where they are. And it's growing darker and more oppressive by the hour. The people are frightened, and they don't know what to do. They don't know which direction will take them out."

"How did you find your way out?" Father Jakes asks.

"It was the oddest little fellow. He's some sort of mystic. He found me wandering, and told me, 'Madly Priest. This way is no good you go. Go you must back to the real world, and tell them, you will. This: pray you must, if you want the Gospel light. If to pray no one cares enough, then God will not work to perpetuate the lightness. Tell them, pray they must, to free the Gospel light.'"

MadPriest went on, "The gnomish bloke said there's a castle in the heart of Province X. There, the Gospel light is imprisoned. There, also, is the source of a spreading darkness. We must set free the Gospel light, but it will be impossible, without worldwide prayer in support. He gave me the horses, and pointed the way out. He said to find you and tell you."

"How did he know about us?" Father Jake asks.

"I don't know," MadPriest says. "He just seems to know everything."

The three brood for a bit. Finally, Schori says, "Then, that's what we must do. MadPriest, take the truck and go back. Get everyone to pray. Tell them they must believe, and pray."

Schori turns to Jake. "You and I will lead in as many as we can get on horseback. We're going in. We have to."



Jake bows. "I am at your service, Madam."









Soon, a line of riders on horseback threads across the wasteland. Behind follow vehicles, whose drivers refused to turn back. They pledge to follow on foot when their vehicles quit.







Stay tuned for more adventures of the Band of the Three-Legged Stool.

Abandonment of the communion of the Episcopal Church

Here's the article about Bp. John-David Schofield.

I wonder if Pittsburgh's Bob Duncan can't be far behind. In his July 31 speech at a Network meeting, he denounced the discipline of the Episcopal Church, said he's been in communication with other primates (Global South, I would presume) about establishing a mission district here -- with or without the Archbishop of Canterbury. Duncan will also pull the Network and any dioceses he can into an alternate Communion, without the ABC. See the text of Duncan's speech here


From Episcopal News Service:


Committee set to review accusation against San Joaquin bishop

By Mary Frances Schjonberg
Monday, July 31, 2006

[Episcopal News Service] The Episcopal Church's Title IV Review Committee is preparing to deal with accusations that Diocese of San Joaquin Bishop John-David Schofield has abandoned the communion of the Episcopal Church.
Bishops J. Jon Bruno of Los Angeles, Jerry M. Lamb of Northern California, James R. Mathes of San Diego and then-diocesan William E. Swing of California sent the letter to Bishop Dorsey Henderson of Upper South Carolina in mid-July. The letter cites Canon 9 of Title IV of the church's canons, entitled "Of Abandonment of the Communion of This Church by a Bishop."

Henderson, the senior bishop among the members of the 2007-2009 Review Committee, said July 31 he was not comfortable releasing the substance of the letter.

"There is a provision that is pretty clear dealing with the other kinds of misconduct that says that all of the matters related to a presentment will be confidential. That provision does not appear in Canon 9, but I am not sure whether that is oversight or intentional—but I feel that, unless the whole committee makes a decision otherwise, this ought to be confidential as well, unless I have the release–and I will ask them—of Bishop Schofield and the others," Henderson said.

Various websites and blogs had been speculating in recent days about such an investigation and what it might entail, up to and including a presentment and ecclesiastical trial.

"It is not a presentment," Henderson said. "It is not dealt with in the same sense that other misconduct would be dealt with."

It has been reported elsewhere that the bishops claimed evidence of abandonment in San Joaquin's action at its last diocesan convention, when it changed its constitution to qualify its agreement to submit to the Episcopal Church's Constitution and Canons. Article V, Section 1, of the Constitution says that a diocese's constitution must accede to that of the Episcopal Church.

At its last convention, the diocese changed its constitution to read that the diocese would accede "to the extent that such terms and provisions, and any amendments thereto, adopted by the authority of the General Convention, are not inconsistent with the terms and provisions of the Constitution and Canons of the Diocese of San Joaquin..."

Henderson said that the members of the 2003-2006 Review Committee have unfinished business from the just completed triennium and thus Bishop Charles Keyser is still chairing the committee. Henderson said he and Keyser have agreed to have the two committees meet at the same time and in the same place, as soon as the former committee receives a report of an investigation initiated as a result of a previously filed allegation. That allegation has nothing to do with Schofield, Henderson said.
A news release on San Joaquin's website says that "the [diocese's] Chancellors have already responded to the initial allegations by challenging the appropriateness of the specific Canon Law [IV.9] being used to bring charges."

"In short, these allegations are neither relevant nor justified," the short statement concludes.

Henderson said he has received a letter from the San Joaquin chancellor and has replied indicating that the 2006-2009 committee would meet for organizational purposes in August or September, and that he told Swing the same thing.

Title IV, Canon 9 says that a bishop abandons the communion of the Episcopal Church if he or she takes one of the following actions:

* open renunciation of the Doctrine, Discipline, or Worship of the Church;

* formal admission into any religious body not in communion with the
same; or

* exercising episcopal acts [Holy Orders and Confirmation] in and for a religious body other than the Episcopal Church or another Church in communion with the Church ...without the express consent and commission of the proper authority in the Church.

Read the full text of Title IV Canon 9.

Other canons in Title IV deal with other misconduct on the part of bishops, such as crime, immorality, holding or teaching doctrine contrary to that of the Church, violating the rubrics of the Book of Common Prayer, violating the constitution and canons of the Episcopal Church or of a bishop's diocese and violating one's ordination vows.

If the committee determines by a majority vote that Schofield has, in fact, abandoned the Communion of the Church under the terms of Canon 9, it must certify its decision to the Presiding Bishop. If the three senior bishops having jurisdiction consent, the Presiding Bishop must then inhibit Schofield "until such time as the House of Bishops shall investigate the matter and act," according to the canon.

During that time, Schofield could not exercise any episcopal, ministerial or canonical acts except those related to the "administration of the temporal affairs" of his diocese.

The three senior bishops are Leo Frade of Southeast Florida, Peter Lee of Virginia and Don Wimberly of Texas.

Schofield would have two months from the time he receives notice of the committee's certification and the inhibition to declare in a "verified written statement" that the facts alleged in the committee's certification. If he does not make such a declaration, the canon says, he will be liable to deposition, or removal from office.

If Schofield did supply the statement and the Presiding Bishop believed it to be a "good faith retraction of the declarations or act relied upon in the certification" or a "good faith denial" that the bishop made the declarations or committed the acts, the inhibition could be ended by the Presiding Bishop, with the three senior bishops' consent.

Otherwise, the Presiding Bishop must present the matter to the House of Bishops at its next regular or special meeting. If a majority of the bishops entitled to vote gives its consent, the Presiding Bishop must depose the bishop.

The appointments to the 2007-2009 Title IV Review Committee were Suffragan Bishop Bavi E. Rivera of Olympia, Suffragan Bishop David C. Jones of Virginia, Bishop C. Wallis Ohl Jr. of Northwest Texas, the Rev. Carolyn Kuhr of Montana, the Very Rev. Scott Kirby of Eau Claire, J.P. Causey Jr. of Virginia and Deborah J. Stokes of Southern Ohio. Causey, Kirby, Kuhr and Stokes served on the 2003-2006 Review Committee.

-- The Rev. Mary Frances Schjonberg is national correspondent for the Episcopal News Service.

An Inconvenient Truth

I saw Al Gore's movie a couple of weeks ago, and I've been thinking about it a lot.

Many Central Floridians, along with all South Floridians and untold numbers around the world, can say their prayers, then kiss their patooties goodbye, if Al Gore is right. And experts say he is.

Between rising sea levels because of polar ice melting and more Category 5 hurricanes, there won’t be much left of the Florida Peninsula.

The cause is global warming, and we have about 10 years to turn the tide. Maybe.

Global warming is caused by the greenhouse effect — all the carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by burning petroleum and coal products to run our power and manufacturing plants, vehicles and homes.

Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere. Heat generated from the sun’s rays warming the Earth’s water and land can’t escape back into space, because it’s trapped by this layer of gas.

With the world population growing exponentially, expected to increase 42 percent from 2003 to 2050 — from 6.4 billion to 9.1 billion — and with Third World countries becoming greater consumers of power, there’s no way power consumption will go down.

The temperature of Earth and its oceans spirals upward. Sea levels rise. The snows of Mount Kilimanjaro and the ice of the Himalayas melt. Lakes and glaciers disappear.

Chunks of ice floating down from the North Pole actually cool waters where the Gulf Stream meets the North Atlantic waters, disrupting the return flow of the Gulf Stream, with disastrous results. Subtropical waters grow warmer, fueling more and more powerful hurricanes: more Katrinas.

In May, National Geographic News took a look at the former vice president’s predictions, with a view to debunking errors, but didn’t find them. See the article online at http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/060524-global-warming.html.

Instead, scientists confirmed hurricanes and typhoons have become more powerful over the past 30 years — since greenhouse emissions started spiking.

Heat waves will become more frequent, and more deadly. National Geographic reported, “2005 was the hottest year on Earth since the late 19th century, when scientists began collecting temperature data. The past decade featured five of the warmest years ever recorded, with the second hottest year being 1998.”

Deaths from global warming will double in 25 years, to 300,000 a year, extrapolating from the heat wave that racked Europe in 2003.

It’s one thing to make predictions about what could happen in the future; it’s another to endure the consequences, and the movie shows them. We’re living with the results of our actions.

Some areas flood because of melting mountain ice; others turn into dust bowls because of changed weather patterns and water flow. Category 5 hurricanes become routine.

The question is, can we overcome our dependence on big oil companies and others who profit from the current system and who put out disinformation about global warming?

Gore quoted Upton Sinclair, who said “It’s hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding.”

Maybe when most Americans wake up and realize the lives of their children depend on it, they’ll understand. They'll start demanding solar energy and other clean fuels we've had the technology for, but haven't done anything about. We've been passive and apathetic. We've let big oil interests and their cronies continue to rake in billions, while the Earth suffers.

We’d all better understand, and make noise, before it's too late.

Go see the movie.

Pirates of the Anglican Communion:
Dead Man's Province, Part Deux

Sparrow and the band of hundreds of clerics and determined lay people amass on the journey to the border of Province X. Though it is only early afternoon, darkness and uneasiness descend swiftly upon them.

The band of the Three-Legged Stool traveled across featureless plains all day. Vehicles began to act erratically around noontime. Some trucks stalled, and refused to start again, and those vehicles were abandoned, of necessity.

Sparrow is at a loss to explain the deepening darkness. The sun should be bright in the sky, yet it looks like a winter's evening.

Sparrow, Schori and Father Jake agree to halt and make camp until MadPriest (Orlando Bloom) returns from a scouting expedition.

The aroma of coffee fills the air as the command team pores over maps, trying to determine exactly where they are in this featureless land, and where the border to Province X lies, for no one knows exactly where the tenth province begins. They speculate about the causes of the enveloping gloom.

Sparrow surreptitiously pulls a flask from his pocket and pours "a little" rum into his coffee. "Arrggghh. I remember a day like this only once before. It was 20 years ago, and we were chasing the ghost ship into deep waters of the Atlantic. There was monstrous evil things out there..." Sparrow stops to finish his cup.

The air is still and silent. There's no trace of life around them — neither the chirp of a single bird nor the yip of a lone coyote.


Suddenly, the air is filled with thundering hooves.It is MadPriest on horseback, and 50 more horses follow, tethered to a line trailing from his saddle.

What happened to MadPriest's Geo Tracker? Where did he find the horses?

Only readers of the next installment will know.

Two bishops, two letters

Two different retired bishops, writing two very different letters about the Diocese of Central Florida and the request for alternative oversight.

What do you think?

Letter No. 1

Below is the text of a letter published in this week's issue of The Living Church.

P. 15
Actions Unnecessary

I have read the decision made by the bishop, members of the standing committee and exective board of the Diocese of Central Florida to request alternative primatial oversight. In doing this they have joined the five other dioceses that have made this request of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I don't know what procedures the other dioceses followed to reach their decisions. I do know that Central Florida's decision was not reached by any broader constituency than the entities mentioned above.

As this is the diocese I served as bishop for the 20 years from 1970 until my retirement in 1990, I wish to go on record as disapproving of the decision, not only of Central Florida, but any diocese that follows this procedure. I have written to the Bishop of Central Florida to register my disappointment, disapproval, and dissociation from the decision.

I believe these actions are unnecessary, premature and inappropriate. I cannot believe they will do anything to strengthen the mission and ministry of Jesus in our world. I believe we can rely on Jesus to keep his promise to send the Holy Spirit tolead us into all truth.

The Rt. Rev. William H. Folwell
Bishop of Central Florida, retired

Letter No. 2

This is an open letter from retired bishop Ben Benitez of Texas to retired bishop Walter Righter of Iowa, concerning Bishop Righter's public criticism of Central Florida's request for AlPO:

July 22, 2006

AN OPEN LETTER TO +WALTER RIGHTER:

Walter, back off in your castigation of the Diocese of Central Florida.

In the first place, they have not said that they are leaving the Episcopal Church. They are merely seeking the ministry of an alternate Primate to that of one who at GC 2003 voted for the Consent to the Consecration of Gene Robinson, - to that of one who has authorized the Blessing of Same Sex Unions in her diocese, - and to one who prays at public services to "Jesus, our mother"!

Walter, you must know that ever since you and your cohort, Jack Spong, took to, knowingly, ordaining non celibate homosexual persons, that many people in this Church, like those who comprise the Diocese of Central Florida, and
many others of us, regard you and those who have done as you do as apostate, as having abandoned some of the fundamental faith and practice of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. You have departed from the teaching of
the Church that has been upheld for 2,000 years, and what is more, probably 95% of Christians in the world, including an overwhelming majority of the members of the Anglican Communion, also regard you as having done so.

Furthermore, this is not only a matter of sexual behavior, but an even more important matter is that so many priests and bishops, in your theological camp, no longer believe that Jesus is still the Way, and the Truth, and the Life. Many deny the heart of the evangelical faith, that salvation, and the hope of the world, and our hope for Eternal life, is found in the Cross, and Resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Why you even voted at GC 2003, along with the rest of the liberal revisionist bishops, NOT to reaffirm your commitment to the Chicago Lambeth Quadrilateral, with its strong affirmationof the authority of Holy Scripture as the Word of God. In doing so, you voted against "the Faith once delivered to the Saints", and in fact you repudiated your own Ordination vows!

Walter, in your lecturing to the Diocese of Central Florida, you spoke of reconciliation. However, in GC 2003 when you and others in the leadership of TEC forged ahead with a vote for the Consecration of Gene Robinson, you
were utterly defying the rest of the Anglican Communion, who were pleading forTEC to hold off until there was at least a shred of consensus in the Communion for your action. Where then was your appeal for reconciliation? And yet you, Walter, speak about Central Florida engaging in "coercion"!

And after we of TEC have all but torn this Communion apart, and now in 2006, with the rest of the Communion having given us two years to respond to the Windsor Report, our response was all but a sham, with our squeaking and our quibbling not remotely in compliance with Windsor? What sort of act of reconciliation do you call that?

Walter, I fully respect your right, and that of the rest of the bishops and deputies to disagree on any matter with the rest of the Communion, but why not do so honorably, and without a pretense of compliance? Why not clearly declare that TEC is unwilling to pay the price set forth in the Windsor Report by the rest of the Communion, for us to remain in the Communion, and that therefore, we are choosing to walk our separate way, and that we wish the rest of the Communion well.

Finally, Walter, you allege that Central Florida has said to the rest of the Church, " It is my way or the highway!" And you are wrong, for the living truth is that it is TEC that has said just that, both in GC 6003 and GC 6006, and it is the rest of the Anglican Communion that has been told by us, "You accept our way, or you take the highway!"

+Ben Benitez

Playing now in a diocese near you:

Pirates of the Anglican Communion:
Dead Man's Province

Capt. Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) finds himself drawn into a supernatural battle, when the Archbishop of Canterbury (Robbie Coltrane) charges him with bringing Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church (Keira Knightley), safely to a meeting at Lambeth Palace.

Sparrow arrives in the U.S. only to find the pirate Robert Duncan (Peter Lorre) and his cohorts have raided and looted six dioceses, and taken their people as slaves into a land they have stolen from others and renamed Province X. They declare themselves its rulers. Little do they know the true plans of Akinola of Africa (Darth Vader), with whom they have forged a compact.






Schori tells Sparrow he must rescue the stolen dioceses before she will acompany him to England. What is Sparrow to do?


He knows entering Province X may doom him to eternal Inquisition, endless fundamentalism and intolerable Calvinism. Yet, in order to break the compact, restore life to the Anglican Communion and save the exiles, he must go in.



Schori pledges to stand with Sparrow, as does Father Jake
(Johnny Depp. Or maybe it really is Father Jake.)

Together, they rally the forces of True Anglicanism, the Via Media and the Free Dioceses, under the banner of the Three-Legged Stool.

Sparrow remembers the vials of anti-viper venom and Holy Water the Archbishop gave him (as well as the cross his mother gave him, but which he usually keeps hidden), and holds them closely. Bishop Schori arms herself with the Sword of Truth and holds high the Bible. Father Jake arms himself with the Preparation of the Gospel of Peace and the Shield of Salvation offered to all. They see others around them similarly armed.

What will be their fate? What adventures and misadventures lie before them?

[Ed. Note: these events are fictional, so far.]

News from Central Florida, TEC and the Communion

Central Florida:

There's good news. Here in Central Florida, 32 clergy members signed a statement yesterday, rejecting schismatic actions in this diocese. More were expected to sign today, but I haven't seen a tally yet.

The first portion comes from purpose section of the Constitution of the Diocese of Central Florida, and the second portion rejects the recent actions:

"We, the Clergy of the Episcopal Church in Central Florida, acknowledge our allegiance due to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Christ and recognize the body known as the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America otherwise known as the Episcopal Church to be a true branch of said Church, having rightful jurisdiction in all its dioceses, and hereby declare our adhesion to the same and accede to its Constitution and Canons. We do not accede to any action or effort on the part of Central Florida's diocesan leadership or convention which seeks to disassociate us from the Episcopal Church, the actions and authority of General Convention, or the Anglican Communion."

Pittsburgh:
[Ed. Note: bolding within the text of this document is mine.]

NINE PARISHES CHALLENGE RECENT ACTIONS
OF THE BISHOP AND STANDING COMMITTEE
OF THE DIOCESE OF PITTSBURGH;
DECLARE THEIR LOYALTY TO THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH

Pittsburgh, PA, 11 July 2006.

Nine urban, suburban and rural congregations in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh today challenged the recent actions of the Right Reverend Robert William Duncan and the Standing Committee of the Diocese of Pittsburgh. On 28 June 2006, the Bishop and Standing Committee announced their intention to withdraw from the duly recognized, geographically-determined Province III of The Episcopal Church, envisioning the emergence of a theologically-determined "Province X." The parishes believe that these steps, if left unchallenged, could effectively remove the Diocese from The Episcopal Church. The congregations further believe that by requesting "alternative primatial oversight," the Bishop and Standing Committee seek to remove the Diocese from the oversight of the presiding bishop elect of The Episcopal Church, the Right Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori. The parishes also believe that all of these actions constitute an effort to retain use of property which is properly within the jurisdiction of The Episcopal Church while withdrawing from The Episcopal Church.

History and Rationale

The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh is a founding member of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes, and the Right Reverend Robert William Duncan, bishop of Pittsburgh, serves as its moderator. The Network was formed following the election of the Right Reverend V. Gene Robinson as bishop of New Hampshire in 2003. Subsequent to this development, the Diocese of Pittsburgh, at its conventions of 2003 and 2004, passed an amendment to the Constitution of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, declaring that the Diocese would not be bound by decisions of General Convention when such decisions ran counter to its own understanding of Faith and Order. In the Stipulation which ended the lawsuit filed in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas by Calvary Church, Pittsburgh, and St. Stephen's Church, Wilkinsburg against Bishop Duncan et al., all parties agreed that congregations in the Diocese desirous of disaffiliation from the Network could achieve that end by notifying the Bishop in writing. We believe that in their act of disaffiliation from the Network, those congregations expressed their loyalty to The Episcopal Church.

Representatives from eleven congregations that have opted out of the Network held a meeting on 29 June 2006. In subsequent meetings the following statement was drafted, and was subsequently accepted by representatives of the parishes indicated below. It is offered as a manifestation of our faithful understanding of Christ's love, and is predicated on a belief that the way to resolve differences is to seek reconciliation with those with whom we disagree, and not to withdraw from communion with them. It emerges, too, from our belief that The Episcopal Church is part of Christ's one, holy, catholic and apostolic church, and is a church grounded in the Biblical principle of justice.

I. We believe that the action by the Right Reverend Robert William Duncan, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, and the Standing Committee of the Diocese, announcing their decision to withdraw from Province III is tantamount to leaving The Episcopal Church. According to the Canons of The Episcopal Church, each diocese belongs to one of the nine recognized geographically constituted provinces. While there is a provision for leaving one (geographical) province and joining another, there is no provision for constituting a province based on ideological or theological grounds. We believe that the proposed formation of a Province X, therefore, is canonically and constitutionally irregular, and it is highly unlikely that the General Convention will approve such a province, either in advance of its purported formation, or ex post facto. We believe that since Province X does not exist and is unlikely to exist, leaving Province III constitutes leaving the organized structure of The Episcopal Church.

II. The creation of Province X, in our view, is a mechanism to isolate dioceses, parishes, and perhaps individuals from The Episcopal Church. The formation of the Province is seen by us as the most recent step in an attempt to create a church separate from The Episcopal Church. Since the Diocese is part of The Episcopal Church, and cannot exist apart from The Episcopal Church, we believe that the Bishop and Standing Committee cannot legally remove the Diocese from The Episcopal Church for the purpose of planting it in some other province, or for any other purpose.

III. We believe the request made by the Bishop and Standing Committee for "alternative primatial oversight" is further indication of an intention to depart from The Episcopal Church. Although the Archbishop of Canterbury (at the request of the Primates) did set up a Panel of Reference which could hear appeals from dioceses in dispute with their own national church authorities and "to assist in the resolution of these difficulties" [Panel of Reference Mandate, 6 May 2005] the specific remedy requested is unprecedented and contrary to the basic understanding of the Anglican Communion as a fellowship of autonomous provinces. We believe the request for alternative primatial oversight constitutes a rejection of the duly elected leadership and governing structures of The Episcopal Church.

IV. The Bishop and Standing Committee have cited, in justification for their actions, comments made by the Most Reverend Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, in his "Reflections" promulgated in the week following the General Convention of The Episcopal Church. But it must be pointed out that as the Archbishop himself has stated, the Archbishop's statement is not definitive, and nothing in that document is binding. Any final disposition on any restructuring of the Anglican Communion, after consultation with the Primates, the Anglican Consultative Council and other bodies, will, according to the Archbishop, be a lengthy process, a process that will begin in earnest at the Lambeth Conference of 2008. Moreover, even if the Anglican Communion is restructured, that action, in and of itself, would have no effect on the structure of The Episcopal Church, or on the relations between The Episcopal Church and its dioceses. We believe the actions of the Bishop and Standing Committee have interpreted the Archbishop's document to suit their own views. As Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold has said in response to the Archbishop's statement, "It is misleading that some, in responding to the Archbishop's lengthy theological reflection, have focused their attention on speculations about a yet-to-be determined outcome."

V. We oppose any efforts on the part of the Bishop and Standing Committee to take the Diocese outside of the recognized structure of The Episcopal Church. The Bishop and Standing Committee have stated that they believe it necessary for the Diocese of Pittsburgh to "dissociate itself from the actions of General Convention." Since the General Convention is the supreme governing authority of The Episcopal Church, and all dioceses are bound by its actions, such dissociation as described by the Bishop and Standing Committee constitutes, in our opinion, withdrawal from The Episcopal Church. We believe that any resolutions or constitutional amendments passed at conventions of the Diocese of Pittsburgh which would purport to release the Diocese from compliance with decisions of the General Convention are canonically improper and invalid.

VI. According to canon law, property owned by a diocese is held in trust for The Episcopal Church. We believe that the repeated claims of the Bishop and Standing Committee to be the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, while at the same time acting to separate the Diocese from the decisions of The Episcopal Church, therefore, constitute an attempt to retain legal possession of property held in trust for The Episcopal Church, while at the same time taking steps to remove the Diocese from The Episcopal Church. In light of these actions, we believe that the Bishop and Standing Committee do not represent the interests of the duly recognized Diocese of Pittsburgh.

VII. The authority in The Episcopal Church of any bishop and standing committee of a diocese derives from the authority of the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church, which are set by the General Convention. We believe, therefore, that any claim of the Bishop and Standing Committee that their authority derives from being "in full and unimpaired communion with the See of Canterbury and those churches, dioceses and provinces that uphold and propagate the historic Anglican Faith and Order" is based on specious reasoning.

VIII. In light of the foregoing statements, we further believe that we represent those in this Diocese who are loyal to The Episcopal Church. Accordingly, we extend an invitation to others who wish to remain in The Episcopal Church to join us in our efforts. We remain committed to the building up of the Body of Christ in the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.

All Souls Church, North Versailles
Calvary Church, Shadyside
Church of the Holy Cross, Homewood
Church of the Redeemer, Squirrel Hill
St. Brendan's Church, Franklin Park
St. Matthew's Church, Homestead
St. Stephen's Church, Wilkinsburg
St. Thomas, Church, Canonsburg
St. Thomas & St. Luke's Church, Patton

Maybe the term "interesting" fits the latest news from Canterbury:

Stephen Bates at UK's The Guardian wrote the oddest story about the Archbishop of Canterbury in the most recent of his pieces about the Anglican Communion. It won't let me post a link to the article -- to see the full text, paste in http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/stephen_bates/2006/07/the_bongo_archbishop.html, or google "Stephen Bates" + Going Around in Circles.

The last two paragraphs read:

When I saw the Archbishop of Canterbury on Sunday, he asked me how I thought Saturday's debate had gone. He nodded in agreement when I said that it seemed all the arguments had been made before. I wish he would take a leaf out of the Archbishop of York's book and tell what he described as his "currently confused and struggling church" a little more bluntly how he feels.

I asked him how he felt and he replied sadly: "You don't want to know." Actually, I did. But deep gloom seems to be surrounding the senior staff that the covenant plan to save the Anglican communion is falling apart even before anyone's started discussing what might be in it. One senior figure admitted he did not think the communion could survive until the next scheduled meeting of all the world's Anglican bishops in 2008. Katharine Jefferts Schori has been invited for an early meeting at Lambeth Palace within the next few weeks. They hope to integrate her more closely into the network of Anglican church leaders but this seems a vain prospect given that so many parts of the church's world still don't accept the idea of women in leadership, any more than gays.

Mention the name of Nigeria's conservative (and outspoken) Archbishop Peter Akinola and a strange convulsive, wringing, motion comes over Rowan Williams's hands. If only he would...if only he dared.

If only he would actually take a stand...

A hat tip to the Episcopal Voices moderator for all three of these items of timely interest.

He just doesn't seem to get it

From President George Bush's press conference during a visit to Chicago July 7, from the L.A. Times:

Answering a question about his authority to try detainees before military tribunals, Bush reiterated his belief that the Geneva Convention does not apply to detainees being held at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

"The Geneva Conventions were set up to deal with armies of nation-states," he said. "You've got standard rules of war. So, this is new ground. This is different than any president has been through before, in terms of how to deal with these kind of people that you're picking up off a battlefield and trying to protect the American people from."

Is the president as obtuse as he appears to be? I saw this exchange on the televised press conference yesterday, and couldn't believe that no one challenged it. So, I will.

Mr. President, the Geneva Convention has nothing to do with the character or intent of the prisoner. Absolutely nothing.

Rather, the Geneva Convention lays out how we, as civilized people will treat people who are at our mercy. It's about standards of conduct we set for ourselves, as honorable people. It's about us.

I realize concepts such as "honor" and "mercy" have declined in popularity in recent years. But it not ok to detain people illegally, without representation, then put them in front of military tribunals (who are controlled by you, when it comes down to it). It's not ok to torture, degrade, humiliate or otherwise mistreat prisoners. We are not that sort of people.

At least, we used not to be.

We gained goodwill from former combatants after World War II because we treated prisoners humanely. What will be the legacy of our actions under this administration?

Yearning and learning to love and be loved

The endless debate in the church over sexuality is wearing me out. I'm tired of it.

Leave the analysis to the sciences. It's not necessary to our faith to have a perfect understanding of why people are straight, gay, bi or whatever. It's enough to know that each of us is created uniquely, handcrafted by God.

Like any handcrafted items, no two of us are exactly alike. That's enough to know. God doesn't mean us all to be exactly alike, otherwise, He/She wouldn't have created so much diversity of life on this planet, never mind what else is out there.

That doesn't mean that some of us are more equal than others in God's eye. Unfortunately, we human beings are pretty quick to sort out who's more different than the rest of the (ruling) lot, and treat them as factory rejects.

While there's been a boatload of talk about sexuality, I haven't been hearing much about morality.

Let's spend more time considering how we treat each other, for that defines our morality.

People who go through relationships like potato chips are immoral. They're using and hurting other people, treating them as disposable objects, denying them the reflected light of God we are supposed to be to each other. Bi, straight, gay, whatever, it doesn't matter.

If we sit drawn up in our own meanness and tell others they can't have love because of who they are, we're immoral. We're denying God's children the light of God's love.

Our work as Christians is to shine God's love on each other, and on those who haven't yet come to see that love, so they might see. We can't live without love. The less of it we're exposed to, the less value we see in ourselves and each other.

God's love heals us and brings us to wholeness. It's offered to us directly from God and through each other.

If I see a straight or same-sex couple in a loving, faithful, nurturing relationship, then I must accept this comes from God.

If I see a straight or same-sex couple in an abusive relationship, or where one or both partners are indulging in outside sexual relationships, then something is wrong. Healing is needed, and perhaps the partner who is being exploited and misused may have to leave that relationship to get into the light of God.

To go through a string of such relationships is immoral. It's turning away from the love God wants us to accept.

This is why telling someone he or she is unloveable is such a sin. Heard often enough, the lie is believed, and its impossible to have a healthy relationship when we believe neither God nor anyone else could really love us. That's a tragedy. How awful to tell people they can't have relationships, then accuse them because they don't have it.

Unless we've been unbearably broken somewhere along the line, we all want to be in a loving relationship with another person. It's something I most earnestly desire for myself, and I know it will be a gift from God.

Who am I to deny it to someone else?

It is a sin the church's time and energy have been diverted from doing God's work to the topic of sexuality. I want to hear less about sexuality and more about God.

A cause for good cheer

If your spirits need a lift during this time of contention, accusation and separation, watch this.

If we were Roman Catholic, I'd be talking about canonizing Desmond Tutu.

Watch the tape. You'll see Christ shining out of his eyes, and through his being.


Happy Independence Day to everyone, everywhere. Remember we were created as children of God, with the right to enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Want to see a real firecracker? I got to see the Space Shuttle Discovery streak across the Central Florida skies this afternoon.




Cheers! And God, please give them a safe mission.

Just a suggestion ...

The Episcopal Voices of Central Florida, of which I'm a member, is drafting a response to Bishop Howe's request for AlPO. We will dissociate ourselves from this action, as we should.

The (ultra-conservative, fundamentalist) leadership of this diocese has insulated itself from the people in the pews. There was no attempt to get a consensus from members of the diocese before hooking us up to the Network a couple of years ago. No one even knew the boards were meeting unitl after they came out with the June 29 statement dissociating this diocese from the actions of GC, refusing the leadership of the duly and lawfully elected new presiding bishop, and demanding alternative oversight.

My friend Charlotte made this suggestion:

The decision to seek A(l)PO for Central Florida was taken by a very small group of very conservative committee members. There is no representation on these committees for the moderate or liberal Episcopalians in the diocese. We didn't even know the names of these committee members until yesterday; they aren't posted on the diocesan website. Yet they have put all of us in the diocese at risk.

What I'd like to see is representation for moderates and liberals at all levels of the diocesan leadership, and I'd like to see it effected as soon as possible, perhaps through a mass resignation of all current Standing Committee members, followed by a special election.

In other words, a kind of Glorious Revolution in the diocese, making it possible to introduce some checks and balances into the decision-making process.

They are needed! After reading the Guardian article, "Divine Divisions," I'm quite convinced that the decision to seek A(l)PO will prove to be disastrous for the persons who took it. If they climb down from their present position, it will be humiliating; if they do not, they will split the whole Communion, including the Church of England -- and I would not want that to be my legacy to the Church I love! If they had been able to hear the voices of dissenters, they might not have succumbed to groupthink and the excitement of the moment.

I, too, would like to see a mass resignation and special election. The British Prime Minister can call for a special election if he or she feels out of step with the will of the people. Let's take a leaf from that Anglican book.

The request for AlPO could be put up for a vote -- do we, a clear majority in the diocese, really want this?

Unfortunately, I don't see this happening. The people in power aren't going to give an inch, though I think we should hammer away at it. Vive la revolution!

So, I have a suggestion for the Archbishop of Canterbury, who, I suspect, is always delighted to receive my suggestions: Sit on this request like you sit on everything else. In 20 years, when all the signers have died or retired, your successor can ask her aide, "Oh, BTW, whatever is happening with those schismatic yanks in Central Florida and Pittsburgh and whatnot?"

Maybe it could be put on the table at Lambeth 2028.

No waiting

Well, logic doesn't define the Network. San Joaquin, Pittsburgh, and Dallas have rejected the Episcopal Church's oversight. Marty Minns has joined the Nigerian Church, from where he can meddle in Episcopal churches with impunity.

Obviously, they were never committed to subjecting themselves to the Windsor process -- just banging TEC over the head with it.

How will the Presiding Bishop and the Archbishop respond? Will they respond?

I haven't seen or heard any comment from the Diocese of Central Florida yet. I wonder if the bishop is planning to jump ship now, or if he'll wait and see how the wind blows. Back in January, he set a special diocesan meeting in September to review General Convention.

So, if you're getting your way, what are you complaining about?

It occurred to me this morning that the conservative spin on the Archbishop's statement may be a good thing. They're playing up the idea of the two-tier system, with one province in full communion (the Network) and one that's loosely affiliated (The Episcopal Church).

If they're saying they're going to get their way, then they have no justification for splitting in the immediate future. They need to wait for future action from the ABC and his consulting group, a couple of years down the road. That bit of logic may escape them, though.

The ABC's statement is murky, as always, but my take on it is different.

The Archbishop of Canterbury sounds rather supportive of, and noted the intention "to appreciate the role played in the life of the church by people of homosexual orientation."

He doesn't indicate any censure, kicking out, etc., of the Episcopal Church, that the Network bishops wanted from him. The Archbishop's pretty much telling everyone to settle it out themselves -- it isn't his role to play judge or policeman in squabbles among the constituents.


Question: Will the churches in Nigeria, Uganda, an alternate province in the U.S., if such occurs, or others be willing to "limit their local freedoms for the sake of a wider witness," as the ABC stated, to stay in full communion? The conservatives think it will be them setting rules for The Episcopal Church, without any limits put on their "alternative province." I don't think so.

Will polygamy and church-sanctioned hate crimes against gays cease?

Will provinces come into compliance in ordaining women, to meet the ABC's call for greater involvement of women in the life of the church?

Will primates cease crossing their jurisdictions?

What changes would all the provinces have to make to fit this scheme of unity? What changes will everyone be willing to make?


In the meantime, here's an insightful pastoral letter from the Bishop of Arizona about the convention, thanks to the Episcopal Voices listserv. He explains how B033 came to be passed.


Pentecost III, 2006

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ,

I have just returned from the 75th General Convention of our church held in Columbus, Ohio, and would like to share with you my thoughts about that meeting in the form of a pastoral letter.*

Much legislation was enacted that will effect our life together, and I would direct you to the Episcopal Church's website (www.episcopalchurch.org) for further information and the full text of the over 300 resolutions which were considered. In this letter, I wish to focus on what I believe are the three most important actions of the Convention: 1) The election of a new Presiding Bishop, 2) The adoption of the Millennium Development Goals, and 3) Our response to the Windsor Report.

1). I have known Katharine Jefferts Schori for several years as both a friend and colleague. You may remember that I asked her to be one of my co-consecrators when I became your bishop two years ago. As a former scientist, she brings a certain calm and analytic approach to the problems of the church. She is deeply centered in prayer, but is courageous and energetic. She flies her own plane, runs marathons, and speaks Spanish. We will be well served by her. Her election was the high point of the convention and a deeply emotional moment, especially for women who just thirty years ago were admitted to the priesthood. The day after the election, many were sporting pink buttons which read, "It's a girl!" Some have asked if her election will jeopardize our standing with other parts of the communion where women cannot be ordained. That may be the case, although part of the Windsor Report calls for greater involvement of women in the life of the church.

2) Most of you probably have not heard of the Millennium Development Goals. Very briefly, this is a plan to eradicate the worst forms of the poverty in the world funded by governments, institutions, and individuals pledging seven tenths of one percent (.7%) of their income to agencies of their choice who are working on such projects as: clean water, basic health services, primary education, and medical care in underdeveloped countries. Economists have predicted that if these goals are supported, worldwide poverty could be eradicated by 2015. The United Nations has adopted this plan, and now our church has. We will ask for such a line item in our own Diocesan Budget for next year, and I would urge your congregation to do the same. Laura and I are already researching how our tithe to the church can include such work.

3) Finally, most of the media attention of last week was focused on our response to the Windsor Report, as was much of the energy of our meeting.

As you might expect, the focus of the Windsor Report debate was on the section which asked the American Church to refrain from electing bishops living in same-sex partnerships and from authorizing liturgies blessing same-sex unions, "until which time a consensus is reached in the Communion."

Their were several resolutions passed in response to this request, which reaffirmed, in general terms, our commitment to the Communion, but complying with the exact words of the Report proved difficult. Very simply put, some conservatives felt that anything short of a total acceptance of the exact language of the Windsor Report did not go far enough and would come across as an example of American arrogance towards the rest of the world. On the other side, liberals felt that to agree to a moratorium towards either action would be a backing away from the decisions made in 2003, and hence a betrayal of gay and lesbian people and was therefore a resolution they could not in good conscience support.

The middle position, one which I share, was eventually adopted. It held that even if we were supportive of the actions of our last convention, we also need to do what was asked of us by the Communion and show restraint in taking further action so the dialogue could continue. It was clear that if we did not come as close to the language of Windsor as possible, then we would most likely not be invited to the upcoming Lambeth Conference and hence be excluded from the Anglican Communion. This would be a tragedy for everyone. We needed to do something to keep everyone talking. The resulting compromise, like all compromises, made no one happy, but at least is workable. It "calls for bishops and standing committees to exercise restraint in consecrating bishops 'whose manner of life presents a challenge to the wider church.'"

I realize that some will be upset by my vote to accept this resolution. I joined with the Presiding Bishop, the Presiding Bishop-Elect and the majority of the House of Bishops in doing so, because I believe that it is not a vote about sexuality, but a vote about communion. Complying as closely as we possibly can with the Report will give our new Presiding Bishop the support she will need in order to continue to be at the table with our Anglican brothers and sisters around the world.

That is good news, but there is more: First, we made it through this convention in one piece. Even though the General Convention process has many limitations (what other legislative body in the world has over 1000 members?), and although legislation is never a good way to deal with issues which are fundamentally relational, we managed to make it through the debate and come out with a compromise position which reflects the broad middle of the church. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I believe we have demonstrated seriousness about being part of the Anglican Communion which will be accepted by the majority of our partner provinces.

This week the Archbishop of Canterbury acknowledged our resolve and called for further discussion leading to an Anglican Covenant, an idea which our General Convention has already endorsed. This discussion will begin next year when the Primates meet and will no doubt continue when we all meet together at the Lambeth Conference in 2008. It is clear, that for the Archbishop, the Episcopal Church is still very much a part of the Anglican Communion.

There are plenty of people hurting. Our lesbian and gay members will no doubt be saddened and disappointed by my vote. To them I offer my apology, for I know that our decision calls for their sacrifice, not mine. Our more traditionalist members may see what I have done as an expedient compromise. To them I can only give my reassurances of how much I value our place in the worldwide Communion, and how committed I am to keeping our own American church part of it.

We haven't solved the problem, but at least we have kept people talking, and as long as there is that dialogue, there is hope. As Anglicans, we have a long history of living together in diversity; we are the world's experts in finding the "via media." We've done it before, and with God's help, I believe we can do it again.

I returned from our Convention physically tired, but also spiritually energized. We have not solved all the problems of the church, and I am sure that controversy will continue. But I was also heartened by the feeling of the Holy Spirit at work -- ?in our election of a dynamic new leader, in our greater commitment to the needs of the world, and yes, even in our struggle to find a way to turn our attention from our disagreements to our common call to the Gospel mission.

We have a great church. I am proud to be an Episcopalian, and even more proud and honored to be your bishop.

Faithfully,

The Rt. Rev. Kirk Stevan Smith


This is a healing sort of letter. For all the noise from the right, the breath of the Holy Spirit was blowing through that convention, (though I write as one who witnessed it only second-hand), and I believe all those who want to be in unity are moving in that direction.

The convention did some important things we've heard very little about in the diocese, but which are exciting: the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) and partnerships with other churches to fight poverty.

And all manner of things shall be well...

I was reading Mumcat's great reflection on Katharine Jefferts Schori's election to PB, and it got me to thinking about the role of women in the church through the years.

Mary Magdalene [not the one of the recent novel, but the one of the Gospels] was an apostle; she was never given that title, because she was a woman. Instead, she was wrongly characterized as a former prostitute.

Mary and Martha of Bethany were disciples.

So many women have served God with all their hearts, minds and souls, over the centuries, yet they would have never been considered for ordination.

So it's been with my gay/lesbian brothers and sisters in Christ, unless they simply did not tell.

It's only been a short time women have been eligible for ordination, 30 years in the Episcopal Church, and there's a movement to rescind that, as well as keep out anyone but (apparently) heterosexual men. All this is being held up to the glare of the convention's light.

It's easy to be angry, judgmental and condemning -- to become the enemy -- with a "thick film over the eyes of our soul."

In the words of one of my favorite female saints, Julian of Norwich:

"The soul that would preserve its peace, when another's sin is brought to mind, must fly from it as from the pains of hell, looking to God for help against it. To consider the sins of other people will produce a thick film over the eyes of our soul, and prevent us for the time being from seeing the 'fair beauty of the Lord'-- unless, that is, we look at them contrite along with the sinner, being sorry with and for him, and yearning over him for God. Without this it can only harm, disturb, and hinder the soul who considers them. I gathered all this from the revelation about compassion...This blessed friend is Jesus; it is his will and plan that we hang on to him, and hold tight always, in whatever circumstances; for whether we are filthy or clean is all the same to his love."

"Glad and merry and sweet is the blessed and lovely demeanour of our Lord towards our souls, for he saw us always living in love-longing, and he wants our souls to be gladly disposed toward him . . . by his grace he lifts up and will draw our outer disposition to our inward, and will make us all at unity with him, and each of us with others in the true, lasting joy which is Jesus."

May we yearn over the demagogues, for God. May we yearn over each other for God.

May we all come to unity with God.

A woman for Presiding Bishop! Yowee!

Yowee. My intuition was way off on this one. I expected Parsley or one of the other male candidates to be elected, as a peace-keeping move. There were some good choices among the men, but Katherine Jefferts Schori looks like she's got the spirituality, the brains and the chutzpah for the job.




She's going to have a tough one.

I've been thinking and praying about it since I got the news Saturday. I'm convinced this is, indeed, the work of the Holy Spirit, affirming what she's doing in the world.

I think The Episcopal Church is standing firm on faith.

Of course, the right-wing bloggers are foaming at the mouth. Virtue seems to have some paranoid fantasy where a "cabal" of dissatisfied right-wing and left-wing bishops, led by L.A. Bishop J. Jon Bruno, got together and brokered Jefferts Schori's election. It makes no sense.

Virtue's vitriolic attack ends with "Some very liberal bishops also voted for Schori to stick it in the eye of the Anglican Communion."

Hmm. Substitute Network or AAC and Peter Akinola, and maybe he's got something there, but it's more of making a stand than sticking it in the eye. Not a stand that will make the Network bishops happy.

So what are they going to do? Ask for ALPO? Ikers is already pleading his case to the ABC for alternate province oversight -- basically, leaving the Episcopal Church, but keeping the property. How will the ABC respond to that? How will The Episcopal Church respond?

Politicat, of "Talk is cheap. I'd rather have tuna" fame, is sticking his claws in my knee and saying, "Remember? I told you.
I wouldn't mind if the church just coughed them up like a hairball and got rid of them." But he's only a cat.

Our own Central Florida Bishop John Howe issued yet another fence-straddling letter, praising Jefferts Schori and downing her at the same time.

It reads:

Dear Sisters and Brothers,

Katherine Jefferts Schori, Bishop of Nevada, was elected on the fifth ballot this (Sunday, June 18th) afternoon. I have known her for the past five years, and interestingly enough, we sit side by side at our round table in the House of Bishops during this Convention. This noon, at lunch, between the third and the fourth ballot, we found ourselves having nowhere else to sit except at a table for two. (Nice conversation about our families.)

What can I tell you about her? She is an extremely gracious person with a truly brilliant mind. She is a marine biologist (PhD), with a very laid back personality. She is married to a retired professor of mathematics. They have a daughter who is a pilot in the Air Force. (Katherine herself is a pilot with instrument certification.)

She led the voting on every ballot except the second, when she tied with Henry Parsley of Alabama.

She "wowed" the nominating subcommittee that visited her in Nevada, and she pretty much "wowed" the Bishops last March at our meeting in Kanuga.

My concerns are that her experience is quite limited. She has never been a rector; she has been a Bishop only five years; and her diocese is very small. Many parts of the Communion will have difficulty in accepting her on the basis of gender. She voted to confirm the election of the Bishop of New Hampshire at the last General Convention.

Nevertheless, I have promised her my support, and I have asked her to visit Central Florida at her earliest convenience.

I wish her well, and I hope you will too.

John W. Howe
The Right Rev. John W. Howe

Sounds like he's still waiting to see which way the wind will blow.

Ah, well. Life goes on.

A prayer for General Convention

After Politicat's entry, I'd better pray!

Please, Lord, bless all those who will attend General Convention to do your work. Give them discernment to see your will, the strength to do it, and hearts soft enough to love each other as you have loved them. Give them peace. Give them your vision.

In the name of your son, our advocate, I ask these things.