STILL ON PATROL

Have We Lost The Meaning of "Justice"?

Some words get so abused in the modern lexicon of politics, or religion, to the extent that we no longer understand what they really do, and should, mean.  One of those is "change" - everyone running for office is for "change" of some sort, so much so that "change" is nearly synonymous with "status quo."

Another word that has been so overused and misused is "Justice."  The word was flying about from nearly every Bishop quoted by the Episcopal News Service in its article about today's Lambeth "Walk for Witness" against poverty in downtown London.  This march, lovingly described by ENS as a "river of purple," reminded me once again that so many TEO and Anglican Bishops are clearly cleaned-up hippies from the 1960's who still love to rail against "the Man" and like nothing more than a good protest march to bring back memories of the "good old days" and the "summer of love."

But I digress.  "Justice" to me, as an attorney, has certain very specific meanings that are quite removed from the perversion of its use in the "social justice" context.  Perhaps this perversion of the word dates itself to Richard Pryor's joke that "justice" with reference to African-Americans being jailed was only a little mis-spelled from "just us."  But I think the use of "justice" is little more than an attempt to apply a much weightier word to a context in which "justice" really has little meaning.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines "justice" as "(1) a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b: judge c: the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity  (2) a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair  b: (1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal c: the quality of conforming to law  (3): conformity to truth, fact, or reason."

These definitions have little to do with the eradication of poverty being a matter of "justice."  The notion that the rest of the world is somehow to blame for all of the social ills that exist on this planet is, well, at best misplaced, but in my opinion downright wrong.  This is nearly as absurd as the notion of paying "reparations" for slavery when both those enslaved and those who perpetrated the evils of the institution are long gone in our past.  This is not to say that we, as Christians, do not have a duty to reach out to those less privileged than ourselves and try to raise them up.  Service to the poor and the hungry is certainly part of the Christian's mission in the world, without question.  That is not where I have a problem.

The problem is that the use of the word "justice" is little more than a mind game being used to motivate the more privileged in the world by sheer guilt.  The implication is that our good fortune to have been born in a country where we have access to food, clothing, social services, education, and the like, is something for which we should feel guilty because it is somehow "unjust."  Horse hockey.  Should we share our good fortune and try to lift others up?  Certainly.  But not because our station in life is "unjust."  It should take no more motivation than reliance on the Bible and the life and Word of Jesus Christ for us to give to causes of eradication of poverty and hunger.  But then again, so many of those uttering various forms of the word "justice" have so walked away from the Bible I suppose I may be asking too much of them to rely on it to motivate the people to act.

"Justice" is and should be a word of power in the English language.  "Justice" is a powerful notion woven throughout our system of laws.  Its continued overuse and abuse by the "socially conscious" crowd for purposes of guilt motivation will inevitably make it just another word that means little or nothing except to be part of the continual buzz of meaningless drivel being spewed from their flyers and chants in the streets.  Leave "justice" where it belongs, and find something else to chant about - perhaps the Bible?  Remember that?

And by the way, TEO, how much closer could we be to the sainted MDG's if the millions you are blowing on property litigation and illegal depositions of clergy were instead spent on eradicating poverty and hunger, or providing education where there is none?  How about letting the orthodox go in peace and putting your money where your mouth is?  THAT would be "justice."

Getting To The Nub of the Matter

Stand Firm has referenced a very nice article by Dr. Chris Sugden, Executive Secretary of Anglican Mainstream, in the International Herald-Tribune entitled "Why Many Bishops Did Not Come."  Sugden does a great job crystallizing the debate between the revisionists and the orthodox, and his article is well worth your time to read.

Sugden points out that the revisionists argue that the issues over human sexuality are merely cultural differences between, say, North America and the Global South, and should be ignored "because of our common faith and traditions of inclusiveness."  But Sugden points out the inconsistency in application by TEO: 

But the idea of comprehensiveness has now been erroneously expanded to mean that the church is inclusive of everyone. In the American branch, The Episcopal Church, USA, Holy Communion, a celebration that Jesus held with his disciples only, is now often offered to anyone of any faith on the grounds of inclusion. The presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katharine Jefferts-Schori, commented on the opening sermon at Lambeth on Sunday: "It's what the Church is today. It is inclusive - even those who don't agree with the message, it includes them too."

Even if that goes squarely against what is stated in the Book of Common Prayer, which opens the Communion Table only to those who have been baptized in Jesus Christ.  This is not viewed as exclusionary except by the revisionists; rather, it merely asks that one avow belief in Jesus Christ before partaking in His sacraments.  But then again, just like the Constitution and Canons, the revisionists simply ignore whatever goes against their notions of "social justice" to the exclusion of hundreds of years of Anglican rubric, teachings, and convention.  More from Sugden:

This means that you are included even if you do not want to be. Moreover, this liberal practice, laudable as it might appear in print, is highly selective, even illiberal.  In the United States, those who disagree with her have found themselves excluded: One hundred priests have been deposed and 200 congregations have been exiled from their church buildings for not accepting the liberal Episcopal Church's position.

As for why so many Bishops are not in attendance, Sugden quotes:

"For the 230 bishops who declined to attend the Lambeth Conference, the problem is that the American church has blessed people in their disobedience to God. In response to a plea by English evangelical bishops to attend the conference, representatives of these conservative bishops wrote that some of their co-religionists in the United States who had objected to the consecration of V. Gene Robinson "have been charged with abandonment of communion. Their congregations have either forfeited or are being sued for their properties by the very bishops with whom you wish us to share Christian family fellowship for three weeks."

"To do this is an assault on our consciences and our hearts. How can we explain to our church members that while we and they are formally out of communion" with the Episcopal Church, "we at the same time live with them at the Lambeth Conference as though nothing had happened? This would be hypocrisy."

Yes, in a stance upon principle which is anathema to TEO, where standards change with the blowing wind of secular society, at least some of the Bishops of the Anglican Communion have chosen to make a statement by their absence.  While I would have preferred that they make their statement by attending and loudly proclaiming their case at Lambeth, as did Bishop Deng Bul of the Sudan, I do believe their point is being made and their absence is nonetheless speaking volumes at the Conference.

Sugden's final crystallization of the two positions is spot-on:

The fundamental question is this: What allows for religious freedom and religious choice? An Anglican faith that adheres to the teaching of Scripture, calls people to choose to follow Jesus and all that he teaches, welcomes all to hear the gospel but is clear where the boundaries are. Or a so-called inclusive Anglicanism that seeks to improve on the Bible, observes no boundaries, and claims to welcome all - as long as you do not disagree.

I think anyone of the orthodox faith should print out this last question on a 3x5 card, have it laminated, and keep it on their person for anytime this debate comes up.  In two crisp, eloquent sentences, Dr. Sugden has said it all.  I don't know about you, dear reader, but I know upon which side of this line I fall.  And I wonder how any revisionist would possibly refute any point Dr. Sugden makes - the truth is so plain to see.

Queen the Carrot for Bishops?

The focal point for today's activities at Lambeth is a "protest march" in the streets of London for the Bishops to supposedly demonstrate their support for the United Nations' Millennium Development Goals and the global fight against poverty and hunger.  The carrot to get them to march is, at the end of the day, if they make the trip to London, they get to go to Buckingham Palace and meet Queen Elizabeth II for tea and crumpets on the lawn.  Does anyone not see the irony in this?

In the American church, the MDG's have become, at least in the words emanating from the P.O., virtually the new theology standing on a par with Holy Scripture.  "In the MDG's We Trust", and all that.  Yet comparatively few of the Bishops actually go out and get their hands dirty in working for the poor and hungry of this, or any other country.  Photo opportunities such as today's march made in an effort to symbolically show "we care" have been the order of the day.  Just as in last fall's HOB tour of devastated areas of New Orleans, the MDG cause would be better served by good works such as helping build a Habitat for Humanity house than posing for pictures showing magenta shirts among the wreckage.

Today's march juxtaposed with attendance at a tea at the symbolic home of the British monarchy demonstrates, in my mind at least, the utter shallowness of the lip service paid to the MDG's by much of the Anglican Communion.  The African Bishops, most of whom are not present, are on the firing line of poverty and hunger every day, not to mention the threat of death from Islamic extremists.  Yet they seem to get so little respect from their caucasian brethren, particularly from the Episcopal Church, who continually look down upon them as if they were uncivilized savages - "They're where we were 40 years ago."  The American church seems to believe that throwing money at such causes is enough to assure its place in heaven, even while it looks down its collective patrician nose at those who deal with it every day.  And you can bet that the Americans will be front and center for today's photo opps during the so-called "March" so they can claim "we care."

Queen Elizabeth II is far too much a lady to create controversy, but wouldn't it be interesting if she were to call the Americans to task at today's tea?  I can imagine her asking the P.O. how it is she can claim to be "inclusive" and yet persecute the theologically orthodox?  And I can imagine her asking the P.O. why she and her minions have made such an utter mess of the Anglican Communion.  The Queen, after all, is still the titular head of the C of E and would be within her rights to inquire.  But this, of course, is highly unlikely to ever happen.

More Fracture Lines at Lambeth

From various sources around the Internet:

Media requests for lists of attendees to the Lambeth Conference are being denied, ostensibly because of "privacy" concerns.  When it was pointed out that the attending Bishops were not attending as private individuals but as representatives of their respective Dioceses and Provinces, the press officer had no response.

Bishop John Howe writes:

"After the second day of "Indaba" groups, there seems to be an incipient revolt stirring among us. Many of the Africans are saying, "This isn't 'Indaba' at all! First of all, we are not a village, and we don't know each other. And secondly, we are not attempting to solve a problem; we are talking in small groups about minor issues of little consequence."  The Archbishop of York, John Sentamu (himself an African, I believe from Uganda) is reported to have said, "If Indaba is such a great idea, why is Africa in such a mess?" There seems to be the beginning of some rumbling that we need to get to a decision-making moment in the life of the Conference."

But wasn't talking about minor issues of no consequence the plan for Lambeth '08?

Roman Catholic Cardinal Ivan Dias, Prefect of the Vatican's Congregation for Evangelisation, told the assembled Bishops:

"Much is spoken today of diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. By analogy, their symptoms can, at times, be found even in our own Christian communities. For example, when we live myopically in the fleeting present, oblivious of our past heritage and apostolic traditions, we could well be suffering from spiritual Alzheimer's. And when we behave in a disorderly manner, going whimsically our own way without any co-ordination with the head or the other members of our community, it could be ecclesial Parkinson's."

Ouch!  the messages are flowing hot and heavy toward the Americans, but so far no sign they are receving any of them with any sense of understanding.  "Spiritual Alzheimer's" and "Ecclesial Parkinson's."  I wish I'd thought of those.  How absolutley spot-on!

Meanwhile, it appears that even the Americans are getting tired of "Look At Me" Gene.  After all, there are quite a number of large egos on the HOB and I'm sure they rankle at Robinson grabbing all the attention and making himself the face of the American church.  Per Religiousintelligence.com:

"The push to seat Gene Robinson at Lambeth Conference failed yesterday after the American bishops declined to force the issue. At their July 21 provincial meeting at the Lambeth Conference the American bishops declined to take action on a request by liberal members of their caucus to ask the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, to seat the New Hampshire bishop.

Bishops attending the closed meeting tell ReligiousIntelligence.com that some bishops pushed for Bishop Robinson to be extended an invitation. There followed a substantive discussion of the Robinson issue with several bishops expressing their anger and hurt over his exclusion.

However, the American leadership declined to take up the issue and a growing number of bishops appear to be distancing themselves from the controversial New Hampshire cleric in a bid to avoid conflict with the conference organizers. ...

One bishop told us that the provincial meeting was very much like recent meetings of the House of Bishops, with the issue of Gene Robinson, and disquiet with the proposed Anglican Covenant generating a great deal of passion from some speakers.

However, he added that the majority of American bishops appeared to be tiring of the focus on the travails of the Bishop of New Hampshire, and were not yet prepared to buck the Archbishop of Canterbury on this topic."

I'm sure the fun and games will continue, especially if the press continues to be stonewalled by the Conference organizers and is forced to seek out sources from within the Bishops themselves, who seem more than willing to talk.  Are we having fun yet?

Gledhill: "Lambeth Falling Apart"

Ruth Gledhill reports today from Lambeth: 

"As I write this the Archbishop of Sudan Dr Daniel Deng is sitting behind me in the press room, calling for Gene Robinson to resign. 'God is not making a mistake creating Adam and Eve, he said. "He would have created two Adams if he wanted.' He has just come from a meeting of the 150-plus Global South bishops at the Lambeth Conference, representing 17 provinces. And this has just come in from Bishop of Fort Worth Jack Iker: 'Those Bishops who stand in solidarity with Gene Robinson should withdraw themselves from further participation in the Lambeth Conference. Having failed in several attempts to include Gene in the Conference, his supporters should themselves feel a sense of rejection from the Conference itself. Integrity and honesty would dictate that they should stand with Gene - excluded from full participation in the Lambeth Conference. Is this all talk, or is it backed up by action?'

This represents the hard-line conservative-traditionalist stance at the Lambeth Conference and it is widespread. I wish I wasn't writing this but things here are really not looking good. The Anglican Communion seems to be falling apart in front of our eyes and it is not a pretty sight."

This report comes on the heels of Ruth reporting that the Conference is some 2 million pounds sterling ($3,986,000 in U.S. dollars) in debt and the Communion has no way to pay the costs.  This has resulted in no air conditioning in the locations of many of the meetings, and Gledhill says to expect "fainting bishops to be ferried out by ambulances any moment now."  Most speculation is that the ABI will soon be asking TEO to write a check, which will almost certainly result in the Americans making what will amount to ransom demands in exchange for cash.  The big one will probably be their demand, apparently already presented, that jurisdictional crossing be more strongly outlawed.

Can the Lambeth final report, whatever form it may take, be so directly purchased?  The bigger question, it seems, if Ms. Gledhill's observation has any merit, is whether the Communion is dissolving in a pool of sweat under the big tent with the Bishops?

This represents the hard-line conservative-traditionalist stance at the Lambeth Conference and it is widespread. I wish I wasn't writing this but things here are really not looking good. The Anglican Communion seems to be falling apart in front of our eyes and it is not a pretty sight."

This report comes on the heels of Ruth reporting that the Conference is some 2 million pounds sterling ($3,986,000 in U.S. dollars) in debt and the Communion has no way to pay the costs.  This has resulted in no air conditioning in the locations of many of the meetings, and Gledhill says to expect "fainting bishops to be ferried out by ambulances any moment now."  Most speculation is that the ABI will soon be asking TEO to write a check, which will almost certainly result in the Americans making what will amount to ransom demands in exchange for cash.  The big one will probably be their demand, apparently already presented, that jurisdictional crossing be more strongly outlawed.

Can the Lambeth final report, whatever form it may take, be so directly purchased?  The bigger question, it seems, if Ms. Gledhill's observation has any merit, is whether the Communion is dissolving in a pool of sweat under the big tent with the Bishops?

"Post-Colonialism" Discussed at Lambeth - Is TEO "Getting It?"

There appears to be an interesting discussion going on at the Lambeth Conference about "colonialism" and "post-colonialism."  As I understand these concepts, "colonialism" refers to the time when European countries were actively colonizing the rest of the world by establishing owned/protected territories outside their own national borders.  With England, the saying was once that "the sun never sets on the British Empire" meaning, of course, that British territories were literally around the globe.  In church terms, this often meant the spread of Anglicanism by missionaries, who in many respects were among the pioneers, often preceding British military or governmental entities into a given region.

"Post-colonialism" again, as I understand it, refers to more recent times when the European colonial influence has receded, and former colonies have become independent nations with their own cultural influences and societal standards.  In many instances, former "colonial" influences have clashed with "post-colonial" indigenous influences and standards.

Robert Young, a professor from NYU and a panelist for a discussion of "post-colonialism," had this to say, as per ENS:

"The Anglican Church's role in aiding imperialism is "complicated" with missionaries sometimes serving as the vanguard for governments. What is needed now, he said, is for Westerners to think outside their normal assumptions.  Postcolonialism starts from the premise that "those in the West…should relinquish their monopoly on knowledge and take other knowledges, other perspectives as seriously as their own. It represents a general name for new, insurgent knowledges that seek to change the tones and values under which we all live.  It doesn't say you have to abandon them, but to think about them, to be aware of what those assumptions are. At one level the theory is very simple, the only qualification you need really to start is to make sure you're thinking or looking not from above but below, not from the North but the South, not from the inside, but the outside, and not from the center but the margin. It's the world turned upside down."

In other words, the beliefs and principles being espoused by those from former colonies are of equal value and weight to those coming from the former colonial powers, including England and the United States.  Makes sense, doesn't it?

Contrast this, however, to the patronizing and condescending approach taken by TEO, and particularly by the P.O., to the African Bishops and orthodox theology.  The P.O. has said on several occasions that TEO theology and ecclesiology is more enlightened and advanced than those of orthodox Anglicans.  Remember the "they're where we were 40 years ago" comment?  And just a few days ago, she said, "We're challenging some other parts of the communion to have conversations that they're not comfortable having in public."   There is little question that the P.O. looks down on her African brother Bishops as inferior in religious knowledge and understanding to herself - she has demonstrated this attitude dozens of times, whether she denies holding it or not.  This is part and parcel of "colonialism", the inherent and inbred belief that the colonizer is superior to the colonized.

While I may wonder if the TEO contingent is getting the message, at the same time I am fairly certain that the majority of them are not.  A few Bishops truly respect their international and third world counterparts, but the institutionalized mantra within the Episcopal House of Bishops has for too long been that "we know what we're doing" to the exclusion of any other belief system.  The so-called "inclusiveness" of TEO only extends to those who agree with them, i.e., those who retain their "colonial" sense of superiority and perceived enlightenment.  Those who do not are shunted to the side as "inferior" and "where we were 40 years ago."

The ABI: "Unity Not By Coercion But By Consent"

Did you catch this line in the ABI's interview with Cherie Wetzel in Anglicans United?  The ABI said:  "We must have unity that is formed not by coercion but by consent."   Oh, to have been there for a few follow-up questions about that subject.

A few follow-up questions, if I may please, sir? 

First, have you mentioned that "unity not by coercion but by consent" thing to the Episcopalians lately?

No? In other words, don't you think that million-dollar property litigation, depositions of clergy in violation of its own Canons, and the like are certainly "coercion"? 

Yes, they are a "nasty business" indeed, ABI.  If you have made mention of that to the Episcopal Presiding Oceanographer, how did she respond?

Well, you don't have to use that gesture at me, Your Grace.  Oh?  She used that gesture at you.  I see.

So, how do you plan to forge some form of unity with the orthodox and the liberals when the two are entrenched in their positions?

A "covenant"?  Isn't that some form of agreement?

Yes, but how do you think you will get these factions that are poles apart and distrust each other so thoroughly to agree to any piece of paper?

"In-what", sir?

Oh, "Indaba."  Is that Latin to tell me to go fornicate with myself?

I see.  Small group discussions.  Uh-huh.  When do they get to vote on anything?

They don't.  I see.  Are you sure that word, "indaba" was it, doesn't have something to do with fornication?

"Only in the most indirect sense."  Uh-huh.  May I quote you on that?

Thank you sir.  One last thing, Your Grace.  What do you think of your decision to permit Gene Robinson to be on the grounds even though he isn't a participant?  Any second thoughts?

Oh my.  Did Robinson use that same gesture, too?  Sir?  Sir? 

I guess that's the end of the presser.

New Theme Song for Lambeth?

I was out and about in the car a minute ago and heard an old Dave Mason tune that struck me as the song everyone at Lambeth needs to be singing:

Been away, haven't seen you in a while.
How've you been?
Have you changed your style and do you think
That we've grown up differently? Don't seem the same
Seems you've lost your feel for me

So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
Ooo - ooo - ooohoo oh - oh - o-whoa

I'm going back to a place that's far away. How bout you?
Have you got a place to stay? Why should I care?
When I'm just trying to get along We were friends
But now it's the end of our love song...

So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.
Ooo - ooo - ooohoo oh - oh - o-whoa

I keep wondering what it's going to take for the ABI and everyone on down in the Anglican Communion to see that this whole thing has been allowed to go on too far and too long for any new rules, in the form of a "Covenant" or otherwise, to pull the Communion back together.  As I said before, let both sides go their separate ways as entities under the Anglican umbrella and carry out their respective missions as they see fit.  Let each parish and Diocese pick sides and go peacefully without property litigation. 

If TEO truly believes in the correctness of its theology, let it have the courage to see how the parishioners, parishes, and Dioceses choose to go instead of relying on archaic legal arguments and procedural maneuvering - let Truth face Expediency and see where the cards fall.  Otherwise, how can they claim to have anything which should be subject to anyone's "faith"?

So let's leave it alone, 'cause we can't see eye to eye.
There ain't no good guys, there ain't no bad guys.
There's only you and me and we just disagree.

A Little Cheese With That Whine, Gene?

Ah, poor "Look At Me" Gene Robinson.  His latest whining:

"The most infuriating blow came this morning with news that when the Episcopal Church's House of Bishops meets on Tuesday afternoon (each of the 38 "national" provinces of the Communion will have its own gathering), I will not be allowed to participate, because this would look like I had become a "participant," and the organizers seem intent on enforcing my status as a non-invitee. If nothing can be done to change this decision, it will be a particularly painful blow. At our House of Bishops meeting in March, I pleaded with the House not to let Lambeth separate us. For me to be excluded from my own House of Bishops seems especially cruel and unnecessary."

Such florid prose.  Why, you would almost think Gene is channeling Jane Austen as he wrote this on his blog.  Heaving breasts, torn bodices and the like, you know?

But here's the reality check:  Gene, you were asked not to come.  You have nonetheless insisted on making a spectacle of yourself "on the fringes" and most certainly in the media, and in so doing are being more divisive than you would have been on the "inside."  Your brethren from the TEO House of Bishops most certainly want some things from the ABI during this Lambeth, and they are not going to risk disrespecting him while their wish list is still on the table. 

So, as I said a few days ago, why don't you put a sock in your self-indulgent blather?  Oops, sorry - I forgot - asking you to put a sock in it is a "death threat" right?  I guess I should be looking for that call from New Scotland Yard any time now.

A tip o' my kepi to Greg Griffith at Stand Firm for alerting us to this blog post.

Lots Going On at Lambeth - None of It Good

Several items over this weekend emanating from Lambeth that deserve comment:

1.   The Presiding Oceanographer has once again in an interview denied that the Bible is God's unchanging law, but claims that the Word of God is a moving target to be interpreted on an ad hoc basis.  Read the whole interview at Stand Firm here .  This, of course, is not news, but is offered as yet another example of the real reason so many orthodox are fleeing TEO - it's not just about homosexuality, but the overriding denial of the basic tenets of Christianity that unrepentantly keeps coming from these people's mouths, and their uncommon arrogance to believe that they are somehow smarter and wiser than 2,000 years of Christians, some of whom heard these words from their original sources.

2.   The Archbishop of Irrelevancy is likewise continuing to show not only his lack of grasp of the issues bedeviling the Anglican Communion, but also shows himself to be firmly in the camp of those who see the Anglican Communion more important than the Christian faith it is supposed to be about.  The ABI has been quoted as saying "the Gospel is only truthfully spread by those who are in Communion" in a thinly-velied criticism of those who are boycotting Lambeth.  I have said many times and will continue to believe that the church, any church, is supposed to be the vessel through which Christians enjoy fellowship, learn from and support one another in the Christian faith, and use it as a base from which to bring others to God.  Once the church crosses the line and assumes a role beyond that, i.e., becomes an entity that demands that it be worshipped, it becomes a false icon which is contrary to God's word.  The Communion is only important so long as it exists in service of God's Word.  In the eyes of far too many who are in attendance at Lambeth, however, including the ABI, it seems to have become the purpose and focus, not the vessel.

3.   Ruth Gledhill has reported that plans are afoot for some fifth "instrument of unity" in the Anglican Communion that would be some sort of international canon law blueprint, and would include some sort of moderate-conservative plan for oversight of conservative parishes in America in conjunction with TEO.  In other words, the same tired, useless plan that has been rejected several times before.  This smakcs of the influence of Schori, et al., twisting the ABI's arm to create something they can use to fight the GAFCON movement.  Once again, the ABI, if Gledhill is correct, is favoring process over substance and seeking to create ever more bureaucratic gobbledegook rather than facing up to the straightforward issues.  This goes hand-in-hand with point # 2 above, that the ABI has lost focus on the real purpose of the concept of the Christian church. 

I was taught in a management class one time that the effectiveness of any organization is inversely proportional to the size of its operating manual.  In other words, a well-run organization wherein its members understand their purpose and function does not need much of a manual, while an organization that is cumbersome and diffuse in its focus needs a thick manual to try to keep its members on track.  An effort to add more process to the Anglican Communion belies this very problem.  One cannot, however, fix an organization which has lost its focus and purpose with more bureaucracy and more rules.  It does not follow or apply those it has already - what good will more do?

The more we see and hear from Lambeth, the more the overarching problems of the Anglican Communion are crystallized and revealed for what they are.  Where GAFCON sought to create a safe haven for orthodox Anglicans with in the Communion, the ABI and his American puppet-masters are systematically working to create devices by which the conservatives are further marginalized and shunted to the side in the Anglican Communion.  While they mouth words like "unity" and "communion", they clearly only want those things on their own terms.  "Inclusivity" as a term has become little more than a foul joke that means the precise opposite. 

Where GAFCON sought to accomplish its goals without forcing schism, it seems from this point of view that the liberal attendees at Lambeth are hell-bent on forcing schism, in anticipation of then being able to stand back and accuse the orthodox of being the ones to "leave the Communion" when in fact it is the liberals who have left any sense of communion in the dust years ago.

The Pot and the Kettle Meet Again

The Telegraph is reporting today that TEO, led by the Presiding Oceanographer, plan to lobby the Archbishop of Irrelevancy to prevent American Bishops and clergy from affiliating with other provinces, and to prevent the formation of a separate orthodox Anglican presence in North America.   

Kendall Harmon's pointed comment is terrific:  "So, let us get this straight. None of these transfers to other Provinces in the Anglican Communion would be occurring if the Episcopal Church had not done in 2003 what the Anglican Communion in many different ways asked the Episcopal Church not to do. And, of course, what they did was against tradition.  Also, during the 2003 debate, any outside urging or attempted persusasion, or, even more strongly, intervention by Anglican authorities was seen to be an inappropriate transgression of provincial "autonomy."  Now, however, that something is happening that the Episcopal Church leadership does not like, what is said leadership doing? Appealing to tradition, and asking for outside influence and intervention from Anglican Communion authorities. Got it? Pot, please meet kettle--KSH."

There is another point to be had here, one which has been in existence since the first property lawsuit was filed by TEO.  Almost any time an organization or entity has to force its constituent members to stay within the organization by resorting to asking a third party to intervene and "make" the constituent do what the organization wants, the relationship is already grievously and irretrievably broken.  This is true whether it is done by litigation, or in this instance by asking the ABI to make the orthodox toe TEO's line.  Never mind that the ABI can no more stop the GAFCON movement than he can stop the Earth turning on its axis, and if he tries to do so he will in all probability drive in a bigger wedge than is in place now.

My point is that TEO either does not "get" the end game, does not care about it, or is simply trying to once and for all drive the orthodox out of their "inclusive" organization.  This is in no way about reconciliation and anyone who says it is from TEO's side is lying.  It is about winning the game, pure and simple - who owns TEO when all of the dust finally settles.  The "end game" to which I refer, however, is what will TEO be when and if they finally win it?  At best, an urbanized, marginalized denomination of a few hundred thousand members that owns a lot of empty buildings and an even emptier theology and ecclesiology. 

In the process they will have in many ways injured and abused thousands of orthodox Christians by pushing them out of a church that for many has been a part of their lives, and their family's lives, for generations.  Wonder how they plan to answer to St. Peter for that?  But then again, so many of them, like Bishop Sauls, do not believe in sin but that "God will work it out for everyone in the end." 

So, who cares about the orthodox?  Their names are Duncan, Iker, Orombi, Akinola, Venables, Schofield, and many others like them.  Praise God for these courageous men who will stand up to the likes of TEO and the ABI.

Gledhill: On Lambeth Press Access and the Communist Party

Ruth Gledhill has posted a wandering, but interesting article this morning.  Here is the part about the restricted access of the press to what is going on at Lambeth:

"...At Lambeth, the journos have been divided into the 'clean' and 'unclean'. You can guess which mob I'm corralled in with, and some of you probably think I deserve it. ... But pause to think for a moment. After dealing with a thankfully long-gone staff member at Lambeth Palace, a former senior editor at The Times told me, his voice shaking with stunned incredulity: 'They're just like the Communist Party.' He meant the Communist Party before the wall came down.

Ah.  The description by conservative bloggers of ENS as Pravda is not so far off, is it?  More:

Read and believe if you like the official stuff trickling in a tghtly-controlled way out of Jim Rosenthal's entirely independent press operation operating from a place I've yet to track down somewhere on the university campus. This is where the 'on side' 'journalists', many of whom seem by coincidence to wear episcopal clerical collars, are permitted to hang out. I am sure the citizens of the former USSR were similarly enlightened by what Pravda produced on a daily basis. The real operation, the concrete prison where proper journalists do their work, is being run by the staff from Church House. Peter Crumpler and his minions, themselves shut away in an even more terrible bleak hole of a broom cupboard than our own, are brilliant. (Update: Incredibly, TEC might be coming to our rescue. A series of unofficial bishop briefings is to be organised, beginning this evening. I've been asked to make clear that these are nothing at all to do with the official Lambeth press operation.)

There's nothing like a Lambeth Conference or two to swing me back into the conservative camp. Here I am, separated from the leaders of the Anglican Communion, of which I happen to be a covenanting member, by a ten foot wall. I've helped pay for this! Oh it makes me so cross.

Ok then, it's not a wall, merely a security fence. And it's probably closer to eight feet than 10, a closer inspection today has established. It comes complete with security guards. The wire lacks barbs but I'll try and supply those. I guess David Virtue, George Conger and Riazat Butt and I, all equal in our exclusion, are the 'terrorists'. I'm telling them, a three-foot fence of hurdles, or even a green line made of ribbon, would have been enough. Or even, they could have just asked us not to go in the Big Blue Top. But no. Forget simple human means of exchange. The staff running the Anglican Communion Office have moved beyond that. They're probably wearing bomb-proof vests under their copes in case my pen is loaded with a bullet. Pathetic.

No wonder a quarter of the Anglican Communion's bishops have stayed away. It can't be any coincidence that the boycotters are, by and large, the ones who understand how to talk to a fellow human being with dignity, and not turn their backs on them and shun them, as one of the more liberal primates did in the registration queue yesterday. Inclusivity, yes, but only if you're 'on message'. Maybe this is why the Telegraph hasn't bothered to show up yet. I consider it my duty to be here, though, and report the disgraceful shambles my Church is descending into. How long I can bear to remain a member of it myself remains to be seen. I'll let you know in three weeks."

Ruthie then goes a little schizophrenic on us because she talks of emulating Gene Robinson's example and believing what he is bloging as being closer to the truth about Lambeth (??????), and she speaks of her plans to attend an upcoming service where Susan Russell will preach.  I guess she's trying to cover all angles...

Ruthie then ends up talking about GAFCON and quoting some of the prominent leaders who were there:

"On result of all this is that I am starting to see Gafcon ... in a more positive light.

Peter Akinola, Nigerian primate, Lambeth boycotter:

'Gafcon is a rescue mission – it is our duty to rescue whatever is left of the church from error. From all those. Whoever they are, who have chosen to mutilate, to distort and to even deny the Gospel and to preach something different from what we know.'

Benjamin Kwashi, Archbishop of Jos, Lambeth boycotter, likely successor to Akinola:

'At Lambeth 98 we were looking for a place where we can cry our hearts out and pray and look for the support of the wider Church who would bless us and pray for us. You don’t need much money you just need some words of encouragement, those things were absent.' 

'Respect is earned. When it is thrown away, gathering it can be difficult. From the Mother Church of England, there is the assumption that therefore we can do anything and Africans will automatically come with us, or respect us. I think that is an insult.

'So now Gafcon is an alternative to that where we can cry together, look at our struggles, HIV and Aids problems, infant mortality, - all those issues that dehumanises us as Africans…The wider Anglican world if you ask my opinion don’t want to listen to us.'

Gledhill then swings back to talking about +Chane as a "good guy" among the liberals.  Poor Ruthie.  She seems very confused by the whole thing.  Perhaps reading her reportage of Lambeth will be more interesting to watch the changes and emotions she expresses than for any news she may impart.  Stay tuned.

There's nothing like a Lambeth Conference or two to swing me back into the conservative camp. Here I am, separated from the leaders of the Anglican Communion, of which I happen to be a covenanting member, by a ten foot wall. I've helped pay for this! Oh it makes me so cross.

Ok then, it's not a wall, merely a security fence. And it's probably closer to eight feet than 10, a closer inspection today has established. It comes complete with security guards. The wire lacks barbs but I'll try and supply those. I guess David Virtue, George Conger and Riazat Butt and I, all equal in our exclusion, are the 'terrorists'. I'm telling them, a three-foot fence of hurdles, or even a green line made of ribbon, would have been enough. Or even, they could have just asked us not to go in the Big Blue Top. But no. Forget simple human means of exchange. The staff running the Anglican Communion Office have moved beyond that. They're probably wearing bomb-proof vests under their copes in case my pen is loaded with a bullet. Pathetic.

No wonder a quarter of the Anglican Communion's bishops have stayed away. It can't be any coincidence that the boycotters are, by and large, the ones who understand how to talk to a fellow human being with dignity, and not turn their backs on them and shun them, as one of the more liberal primates did in the registration queue yesterday. Inclusivity, yes, but only if you're 'on message'. Maybe this is why the Telegraph hasn't bothered to show up yet. I consider it my duty to be here, though, and report the disgraceful shambles my Church is descending into. How long I can bear to remain a member of it myself remains to be seen. I'll let you know in three weeks."

Ruthie then goes a little schizophrenic on us because she talks of emulating Gene Robinson's example and believing what he is bloging as being closer to the truth about Lambeth (??????), and she speaks of her plans to attend an upcoming service where Susan Russell will preach.  I guess she's trying to cover all angles...

Ruthie then ends up talking about GAFCON and quoting some of the prominent leaders who were there:

"On result of all this is that I am starting to see Gafcon ... in a more positive light.

Peter Akinola, Nigerian primate, Lambeth boycotter:

'Gafcon is a rescue mission – it is our duty to rescue whatever is left of the church from error. From all those. Whoever they are, who have chosen to mutilate, to distort and to even deny the Gospel and to preach something different from what we know.'

Benjamin Kwashi, Archbishop of Jos, Lambeth boycotter, likely successor to Akinola:

'At Lambeth 98 we were looking for a place where we can cry our hearts out and pray and look for the support of the wider Church who would bless us and pray for us. You don’t need much money you just need some words of encouragement, those things were absent.' 

'Respect is earned. When it is thrown away, gathering it can be difficult. From the Mother Church of England, there is the assumption that therefore we can do anything and Africans will automatically come with us, or respect us. I think that is an insult.

'So now Gafcon is an alternative to that where we can cry together, look at our struggles, HIV and Aids problems, infant mortality, - all those issues that dehumanises us as Africans…The wider Anglican world if you ask my opinion don’t want to listen to us.'

Gledhill then swings back to talking about +Chane as a "good guy" among the liberals.  Poor Ruthie.  She seems very confused by the whole thing.  Perhaps reading her reportage of Lambeth will be more interesting to watch the changes and emotions she expresses than for any news she may impart.  Stay tuned.

ENS Features "Daily Report" From Bishop Sauls

I have been saying from this site for some time now that Bishop Stacy Sauls of the Diocese of Lexington has ambitions within TEO far beyond a backwater diocese in Kentucky.  Today's ENS coverage of Lambeth seems to reinforce that impression, as Bishop Sauls has been chosen to offer a "Daily Report" from Lambeth.  If today's rendition is any indication of what to expect, it should instead be titled "Canterbury Cheerleader."

In other words, "All Is Well" and everything is wonderful about the conference:  "I think we're off to a very good start. I have an overwhelmingly positive feeling for today. A great deal of community building occurred among my brother and sister bishops. There was an air of optimism and hope."   The report contains exactly nothing of substance, which probably reflects both (a) what is actually taking place, and (b) American bishops "staying on message."  An example:  "There were two addresses by Archbishop Rowan. They were both thought-provoking."   That's it?  No quotes or even paraphrases?  Does Bishop Sauls think the attorney-client privilege applies?  Or was this more of a freudian slip to indicate that, as usual, the Archbishop of Irrelevancy said a lot of words that, when mushed up together from the Cardiff gas-bag, meant little or nothing, so much so that even Bishop Sauls could make no sense of them?

Okay, it is early to look for anything of substance from a conference which has been planned to yield no substantive discussions or accomplishments.  As expected, so far it looks like we will be treated to a multi-week series of revisionist self-congratulation ("we're all so wonderful and spiritual") and orchestrated bashing of the orthodox ("sinful" and "demonic").  But to quote the famous saying about Congress, "Never has so much been said by so many about so little."

Sticks and Stones

Now the revisionist strategy for Lambeth has started to reveal itself.  First, the Archbishop of Irrelevancy issues a "confidential" paper that accuses orthodox Bishops of "weakening the body of Christ" and suggests that boycotting the Lambeth Conference is sinful.  Now, the Guardian reports (Large grain of salt suggested) that so-called "influential" Bishop John Chane has described African and GAFCON Bishops as "demonic" and has stated that he is "tired of being demonized" by conservatives.

Seems as if the entire revisionist establishment is taking a page from "Look At Me" Gene Robinson's book in attempting to cast itself as the "victim" in this little passion play, and in so doing has decided to try to brand the orthodox as the sinners and spawn of the devil.  I do not need to recount the long litany of events, statements, and actions by the revisionists that prove, without a doubt, that this is all a big lie to spin recent events such as GAFCON.  What should we expect, given the level of coordination ahead of this conference to assure that everyone stays "on message"?  Sticks and stones, sticks and stones - no one with any sense of what has transpired over the last 30 years, and in particular since 2003, is buying this load of garbage. 

I have to wonder, though, what some of the more conservative and orthodox Bishops who are in attendance are thinking right now?  They must feel something akin to being strangers in a strange and curious land, as if they stepped through the ecclesiastical looking glass into Lambeth-Land.

What this does prove, along with dozens of other things, is how far gone the Anglican Communion truly is.  When Bishops of the church at a conference that is supposed to be about unity have, in the first couple of days, made statements that contain little other than childish name-calling, isn't it time to let the clock run out on this thing?   Take a page from professional sports leagues - keep the umbrella "Anglican Communion" if you wish, but let it exist with parallel entities, call them the "Gospel Conference" and the "Unitarian Conference" perhaps, operating independently without reference to geographical or jurisdictional lines.  Then each can go about their mission in the world as they see it, without wasting so much time and energy on this kind of foolishness.  I can foresee lots of free-agent signings and franchise movement for the "Gospel Conference" were this to happen.   We can work out the All-Star game and World Series later.

Isn't it time for the revisionists to grow up and let everyone part like adults?

The Archbishop of Irrelevancy Goes 'Round the Bend

Ruth Gledhill is reporting in the Times Online that the Archbishop of Irrelevancy, Rowan Williams, is firing back at conservative Bishops, particularly those who are boycotting his Lambeth tea party.  Apparently he has done so in a paper that was distributed to the attending Bishops but not meant for public distribution.  Preaching to the choir, eh, ABI?

The paper supposedly says, according to Gledhill,

"Anglican bishops arriving for the Lambeth Conference yesterday were told to stop their backstabbing and in-fighting if they were not to “weaken the body of Christ”.  A background paper distributed to 650 bishops and archbishops attending the ten-yearly conference in Canterbury told them to remember that their relationships with each other were “fragile and tainted by sin”.

Anglican rows over ordaining gay priests and women bishops were damaging for “all the baptised”, it said. But the most stinging criticism was for conservative bishops, of whom 230, mainly from Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya and Rwanda, are boycotting Lambeth.

The paper, commissioned by Dr Williams, made clear that bishops who had transgressed diocesan and provincial boundaries in search of “orthodox” primacy were considered guilty of undermining collegiality. An even worse sin, it suggested, was boycotting the conference."

This is the kind of thing I have been talking about when the clergy of a church place the institution above the Gospel.  To the ABI, it is more important to come to a meeting with heretical TEO Bishops, most particularly the P.O., than it is to honor the Biblical warnings against associating with such people.  Missing a meeting of the Anglican Communion is nowhere near a "sin", ABI, but then again, you have demonstrated a marked lack of understanding of the concept of "sin" anyway. "Collegiality" is placed on a higher pedestal than faithfulness, and artificial, man-made boundaries are considered more significant than ministering to God's children wherever they may be.  I'm afraid the ABI still just does not get it.

How is it possible that working to maintain adherence to the Word of God and the teachings of Jesus Christ in His Gospel is "weakening the body of Christ"?  Particularly when the course the ABI would have Anglicanism take is a cafeteria Christianity where anything goes and theology is a moving target depending on which direction the secular, popular culture wind is blowing.  How is faithfulness to the Gospel "weakening the body of Christ", as opposed to the ABI's constant pandering to Muslims by stating that Christianity is "offensive" to them and we should recognize Sharia law?

I would suggest, rather, that the ABI's weakness and dithering in office and inability to manage this crisis in any realistic sense have "weakened the body of Christ" far more than any action taken by the orthodox.  How can he blame the orthodox when there is no question that TEO was told very clearly that their course of action was going to "tear the fabric" of the Communion, but they nonetheless flipped off the entire Communion and did as they wished?  The orthodox are trying to give the "body of Christ" as it exists in the Anglican Communion spiritual CPR by the Jerusalem Declaration and the GAFCON movement.  The ABI and his TEO puppetmasters have done nothing but destroy hundreds of years of Anglican tradition and history and rendered their brand of Anglicanism a laughingstock among denominations.

No doubt this will not be the last steaming pile of self-righteousness to emanate from Lambeth over the next few weeks.  The broccoli-headed blowhard may be "firing back", as Ms. Gledhill says, but he's shooting blanks.

Now I Understand Robinson's "Death Threats"

I occasionally have moments of clarity when I figure things out.  One of them just hit me when I saw this description of "Look At Me" Gene Robinson's media schedule at Lambeth:

"Robinson had been talking from almost the moment he woke up that morning. Before arriving at the church at noon, he had done three interviews with the BBC. Two of those were radio conversations, one for the BBC World Service and the other for a national news feed. In between, he and his friend and ally Sir Ian McKellen sat for a conversation with Andrew Marr on his influential Sunday morning program.

Once he hit the church, Robinson dove into the first of a dozen more interviews, this one with Rachel Zoll of the Associated Press. Over the next five hours he spoke with Robert Pigott of the BBC, ITN television, Sky TV, Channel 4 TV, Ruth Gledhill of the Times of London, Steve Daughty of the Daily Mail, Mary Jordan of the Washington Post, Solange DeSantis of Episcopal Life Media, a reporter from the Press Association and others.

In the midst of this media blitz–which continues tomorrow with an interview with Reuters and several other outlets–it is worth remembering that after Rowan Williams decided not to invite Robinson to the Lambeth Conference, Lambeth Palace, by way of a peace offering, offered to procure for him a single interview with a major media outlet."

So here's my moment of clarity.  Robinson has not had "death threats" in the conventional sense.  The kevlar vest, if he truly even wore one, was a publicity stunt.  What Robinson considers to be "death threats" are the many people who have variously voiced the sentiment that he should "put a sock in it", or shut up and do his job as Bishop of New Hampshire.  Of course, if Robinson were to "put a sock" in his always-open mouth, he would probably suffer major withdrawal symptoms from his addiction to media attention, which in extreme cases can cause death.  Hence, anyone who expresses the opinion that "Look At Me" Gene should "put a sock in it" has ipso facto made a "death threat", in his way of thinking.

I also read somewhere today that Robinson has spent $70,000 for security while he is at Lambeth.  So much for his concern the other day about people who supposedly live on a "dollar a day" in London.  I hope someone looks into this claim and determines whether any of this "security" funding has come from Diocesan or Church money, or for that matter, whether his presence in England has been funded by TEO or his Diocese.  If there is any church funding behind his presence in England or any aspect of it, that is malfeasance of the highest order and a presentment should be brought forthwith.  On the other hand, if "Look At Me" Gene is funding all of this from his own pocket, will he ever put his own money where his considerable mouth is and forego some media-driven travel for true Christian mission work? 

I know, I know, I followed my moment of clarity with a hallucination.   I need some Advil.

A tip o' my kepi to Dean Brian Baker for the "Look At Me" Gene information.

ENS - Preservation of Canterbury Cathedral

Sometimes I wonder if the writers at ENS appreciate the irony of some of their reporting.  Matthew Davies yesterday posted a nice story about the Canterbury Cathedral welcoming visitors to Lambeth, as well as preservation efforts which are ongoing at the ancient edifice.  Davies' lead paragraph was this:

"Canterbury Cathedral has been a place of prayer, worship and pilgrimage for 1,400 years. The rich heritage of this historic landmark in southeast England is a reminder of the countless Christians who have passed the flame throughout the centuries to ensure that the cathedral's legacy is never forgotten."

Later in the article, Davies says:  "The mother church of the Anglican Communion and indeed of English-speaking Christianity, Canterbury Cathedral's story began in 597 AD when St. Augustine reintroduced Christianity to this region of southeast England."

How sad is it that even while paying homage to an ancient building, albeit a glorious, holy place like Canterbury Cathedral, ENS and its parent organization TEO have done all they can to urinate on the flame of Christianity that has been passed down from the Saints?  The legacy of Canterbury Cathedral, as well as thousands of other Cathedrals, and parish churches for that matter, has been a Biblically-orthodox Anglicanism that was once the religious denomination that spread Christianity to the four corners of the Earth by British exploration and colonialism.  That faith continues to sustain and convert thousands in Africa and Asia even to this day.  Yet in its historic home and in its earliest colony, Anglicanism has been profaned by those who would treat the Bible as a Chinese menu from which they can pick and choose according to whim, and who reject even the most basic notions of the Trinity and God's path to eternal salvation.

I sometimes wonder if edifices such as Canterbury Cathedral, or the National Cathedral in Washington, will crumble under the weight of the heresy being pronounced within the Church.  Then I realize that like the Kingdom of God, such holy places, built by incredibly faithful and persistent people, will endure and ultimately prevail over the heretics.  They have done so before, and if it is God's will they will do so again.

Open Letter From Dr. Ephraim Radner to Lambeth Bishops - "Abandoning the Communion"?

The Anglican Communion Institute has published a letter dated Sunday, July 13, from Dr. Ephraim Radner to all of the Bishops attending the Lambeth Conference, starting this week.  While there are points he makes with which I would disagree, this letter is a strong, but likely futile call to these Bishops to take action, not just "indaba" their time away. 

Dr. Radner says, "What are American Anglicans to do who remain committed to the Anglican Communion’s vocation of unity-in-council for the sake of the Gospel?  If the Lambeth Conference cannot take it upon itself to act with clarity and evangelical coherence in the face of the threats to our common life, you abandon us." 

Indeed, sir, if Lambeth does not act, and do so now, they abandon all of us, whether we be Comm-Cons or Fed-Cons.  GAFCON has set down a roadmap for the faithful to follow within the Anglican Communion.  Inaction now will only further marginalize Lambeth Palace and the office of the Archbishop of Irrelevancy, which perhaps is not a bad thing in the post-GAFCON world.  I would submit that inaction by this Lambeth Conference will amount to an "abandonment of communion" of the worst order, worthy of ecclesiastical prosecution.  But I'm not holding my breath.

Dr. Radner lists four actions he believes the Lambeth Conference MUST take.  Here are the high points of his list: 

1.  You must state clearly that the actions of TEC as an official body, and of certain Canadian dioceses, are unacceptable to you as bishops of the Communion.  And you must decide, resolutely, that those bishops from these churches who are in agreement to press forward in ways the Communion has now clearly and consistently repudiated no longer partake in your common councils.   I am not eager to state this; but I know of no other reasonable course to take at this point. This is not a matter of punishment, or even “discipline” in any technical form:  it is a matter of common Christian sense. ...

2.  You must call back into your midst those who have stayed away from this Conference, not simply as a sign of continued fellowship, but in order to meet face to face again to resolve and heal the breaches that are widening among you month by month.   There is much speaking of the truth, repentance, and reconciliation that needs to be done among you and with them. ...

3.  You must come to a common and directive mind on how you will recognize and work with those Anglicans in North America especially – bishops, dioceses, congregations, and clergy – who have remained faithful and wish to remain faithful to the common agreements of our life in the past and those upon which you are ready to embark (and yes, this includes many who do not accept the ordination of women;  they cannot be forgotten). ...

4.   I pray that you will state clearly your commitment to the expeditious formulation and application of an Anglican Communion Covenant, one that will be faithful, concrete and adaptable to the mission entrusted to us. ... 

Dr. Radner then charges the Bishops to take action:

"The grave concern that many of us have is that your conference will come and go without any of these matters being dealt with straightforwardly and positively.  We know that there are many among you even who do not believe that your conference should be dealing with such matters, and would like the format of your meeting to exclude any decisions. 

I cannot say what formal means are open to you.  But I can say this:  you are bishops of this church, you are gathering in the great name of Jesus Christ, and you are called to be faithful stewards of the mysteries entrusted to you (1 Cor. 4;1).   In such a posture you have no choice but to be courageous and call for the work that needs to be done, and then do it, whether the conference seeks your counsel or not."

Strong words.  But then, so were portions of the Windsor Report, and Primates' communiques from Dromantine and Dar Es Salaam, and nothing has happened to change the course forced upon the Communion by TEO, Canada, and others.  No ecclesiastical discipline has been carried out, nor have the so-called "Instruments of Unity" functioned in any meaningful way to preserve unity in any form or fashion.

Dr. Radner continues to dream of an Anglican Covenant as a panacea to all ills.  What I don't get is why he, and others, think this will change anything?  TEO's P.O. agreed to the Dar Es Salaam communique and promptly repudiated it as soon as she set foot again in North America.  TEO has defied and rejected Communion overtures for years, ensconced in the arrogance that its money will forestall any real action for discipline within the Communion.  TEO's signature on anything, be it a communique or a covenant, as proven time and again isn't worth a cup of warm spit.

I would hope by now that the Lambeth Bishops realize that TEO is going to continue to do whatever it damn well pleases.  It continues to this day - the ABC asked "Look At Me" Gene not to come to Lambeth, yet he has set up shop in England for some time now and is making more noise than the entire rest of the 660 Bishops combined.  Integrity is flying in LGBT supporters to sing back-up to Robinson's whining pseudo-martyrdom.   This is not any sort of "good faith" respect for Lambeth - it is TEO bulldozing along as it wishes. The rest of the Communion needs to decide, once and for all, whether they are going to continue to accept this behavior, or ask crazy Aunt TEO to leave the party.  I'm betting on the former.

Dr. Radner's letter is useful in the sense that it defines in several ways the manner in which the Lambeth Conference and the Archbishop of Canterbury are likely to be viewed as marginalized, irrelevant failures once this farcical conference has concluded. 

St. Andrew's Anglican - Versailles, KY

Corinne and I, with her mother in tow, finally got off our collective backsides and attended services at St. Andrew's Anglican Church in Versailles, KY, yesterday.  (And it's pronounced ver-sales in these parts, folks.)  We enjoyed the experience very much and plan to go back; the 40+ mile round trip was pleasant and not at all a burden, particularly with the joy and fellowship we found.

St. Andrew's meets in the gymnasium of an elementary school, having walked away from their beautiful building (St. John's) rather than do battle with +Stacy Sauls over real estate.  They are moving forward with plans to build a new church but it will be some time before that is completed.  When we first entered the gym, I think we were more than a little unsure how this service would be in those environs, although we did discuss that "this is what the Episcopal Church does to faithful people."

The 10 a.m. service was a combination of contemporary and traditional and was based on the 1662 Book of Common Prayer; St. Andrew's usually does a traditional service at 8:45 a.m. and a contemporary service at 11:00 a.m., but July is a "summer schedule" month.  We also found that their dynamic pastor, Fr. David Brannen, was on summer vacation.  The rector of St. Patrick's Anglican, Lexington, KY, Fr. Peter Matthews, was filling in, and we were treated to a better sermon than I have heard in a long, long time.  Fr. Matthews spoke, sans notes, on the parable of the sower of seeds in Matthew 13.  The text, and his sermon, were spot-on with the situation in which we currently find ourselves.

Our experience of the day started with Corinne's mother meeting a former sorority sister she had not seen for many years.  This theme continued as we met many old friends and several new ones.  We were made to feel very welcomed as the members were genuinely pleased that we had joined them.  The worship experience was joyous and uplifting, and we came away with the sure belief that the Holy Spirit is moving among this Anglican presence in central Kentucky.

Fr. Matthews ended his sermon with recounting the story of John Wesley preaching from his father's tombstone in Epworth and beginning his campaign of preaching in the fields and town squares when the Church of England had rejected his Biblical message.  Fr. Matthews slyly said, "Why some of those priests in the 18th century had stopped believing in the Trinity," then he smiled and said, "I think most of you here know how that is today."  As a cradle Methodist, his references to Wesley and the spiritual fire he felt and preached in that low time in the Church of England struck home with me.  The seeds of God's Word had found fertile ground with Wesley and flourished while at the same time other such seeds that fell among the thorns of the C of E were choked out by false theologies.  Funny how history seems to keep repeating itself, isn't it?

I am thankful this morning that God gently put his toe in my backside and finally got me to attend services at St. Andrew's.  As Chris Johnson pointed out at MCJ in the euphoric aftermath of GAFCON, we cannot expect that perfect orthodox churches will appear in our community in an instant - we must seek God's Word and His faithful people where they are and build upon the rock of Faith into our other communities.  We found some of them in Versailles, KY, yesterday morning.

Presiding Oceanographer Speaks With Telegraph

A tip o' my kepi to Jackie Bruchi at Stand Firm for alerting us to this article in the Telegraph.

Let the British media circus begin!  The P.O. is in town and has already stuck her nose into the Church of England controversy over the vote to allow women bishops.  Referring to the vote as a "positive next step," the P.O. said, "I think for people on the other side of the Atlantic, it feels very slow. It feels like a very protracted and extended process."   Of course it does, P.O., when you're used to ignoring process altogether and simply cramming your agenda down the throats of anyone who disagrees.  Lambeth 1.10?  Nah.  Ignore it and press on.  Wait for GenCon 09 before approving same-sex blessings?  Nah.  We know what's going to happen anyway, so why wait?

As for female leadership in the Church, the P.O. went for her usual explanation of anyone who disagrees with her views - they simply "don't understand" the historic role of women in the Church.  That's the way it always is with the P.O. and her ilk - if you disagree with her, you must be ignorant, for only those who share her views are enlightened.  Her arrogance is disgusting.  Her lack of Christianity, either scholarly or spiritually, is appalling.

The P.O. also continues to be dismissive of the GAFCON movement:  "There is a great deal of anxiety around the Communion and the world. People are faced with a range of changes and a pace of change that is unknown in human history. But all will be well.  The Elizabethan settlement was about keeping together people who have vastly different opinions and people were ready to die and kill each other then. This is a slightly lower level of hostility."  As for the GAFCON plan to establish an orthodox North American presence, the P.O. said, "They may threaten but I don't think there's a real possibility. If they decide to leave I think they will end up like other groups who have left the Anglican Communion."

Ah, displaying your own ignorance there, aren't you, P.O.?  GAFCON explicitly said it is NOT leaving the Anglican Communion, but re-establishing the orthodoxy of the historic faith handed down from the Saints.  GAFCON is not schismatic, but is a movement within the Communion to provide a safe haven for orthodox Anglicans who have been persecuted and marginalized by the likes of the P.O.  If she had the sense to realize this, she should be that much more concerned about GAFCON, for it intends to oppose her from within and NOT leave her to her silly own devices.  The P.O. continues to whistle past the same graveyard she has put TEO on track to occupy. 

And what of the "other groups" she lumps GAFCON with?  Setting aside the "left the Communion" falsehood, groups that have broken with TEO are growing and flourishing, and providing a vibrant Christian home to thousands of disaffected Episcopalians.  The ranks of parishes and Dioceses that have broken with TEO continue to grow, while TEO's membership, ASA, and plate/pledge giving all are in a steady decline.  Be careful what you wish for, P.O., because the GAFCON and CCP movements are picking up momentum, no matter how you may protest otherwise.

One last note - go to the Telegraph article and take a look at the photo of the P.O.  If that doesn't scream of the arrogance of the woman, well, er, go see for yourself.  Decorum prevents me from saying what I am thinking.  Suffice it to say that if I received the Telegraph in paper form, I can assure you that photo would right now be gracing the floor of a fine litter box in my laundry room.  I refuse to include it with this post and further disseminate the P.O.'s brand of evil.

Pittsburgh Litigation Heats Up

A tip o' my kepi to the Anglican Curmudgeon for alerting me to this development.

A lawsuit in Pittsburgh that had been quiescent for some time has heated up with a recent filing by Calvary Church against Bishop Duncan and the Diocese.  The lawsuit originated in 2003 when Calvary Church initiated litigation seeking to prevent Bishop Duncan from transferring Diocesan property in anticipation of disaffiliation with TEO.  The case was apparently settled in 2005 by entry of a Joint Stipulation that recited that the document was a settlement of all claims in Calvary's lawsuit.

Now, Calvary has filed a Supplemental Petition seeking (1) enforcement of the prior Stipulation, (2) appointment of a "Monitor" to oversee use of Diocesan assets with regard to the upcoming October 4, 2008 vote to disaffiliate with TEO, and (3) prevention of the Diocese from using Diocesan funds to defend against this Supplemental Petition.   Item # 3 is classic TEO litigation strategy - as the Curmudgeon puts it, "now that is real legal muscle, if you can obtain it---sue your opponent and then have the court prohibit him from spending any of his money on his defense."

One problem with Calvary's Supplemental Petition, as I read it, is that the Joint Stipulation speaks only to the situation of individual parishes seeking to disaffiliate from TEO - not an entire Diocese.  This is perhaps because in 2005 few had contemplated the extent of disintegration now being experienced in TEO.  Thus while the Joint Stipulation speaks to parish assets, it does not appear to address what will surely