Is "Anglicanorum coetibus" a tragic misspelling?

In a previous post Anglicanorum Coetibus: Pass the Groups, I suggested that perhaps "coetibus" might have various meanings. I pointed out that, "The word "Coetibus" means groups in this context but other possibilities include the following,"meeting, encounter, (political or illegal) assembly; union; band, gang, crowd; social intercourse (w/hominium), society, company; sexual intercourse." The matter of "coeti.." apparently has to do with the idea of affiliation, as in people who affiliate with one another or with an brand, or more sexually, who are pelvic affiliates, and much in between."

Little did I know that coetibus might simply have been a misspelling - tragically so - of the word "ceti," so that "coeti" is actually "ceti" and instead of the unseemly possibilities of this meaning "groups" as in "groups of Anglicans" or "group grope," this is a reference to a star "Ceti Alpha." The constellation Cetus is home of Tau Ceti, a star similar to our own sun in size and the target for CETI efforts to contact alien intelligence. It is also the home for Ceti Alpha V, which is the home of a terrible creature used as an instrument of torture.

A comment on this blog suggested that the reference to "coetibus" may in fact be a reference to the infamous Ceti eel, a beast that was forced into Commander Chekov and then matured and came out of his ear. The Ceti eel drove it's host mad and Chekov's scream is a memorable moment in an otherwise very camp movie, "The Wrath of Khan."

So here is the deal: It may very well be that the Pope, may peace be upon him, issued this Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum cetibus," "Anglican bug in the brain" in order to but a bug in our collective Anglican brain and drive us mad. Perhaps others in translating from the Pope's notes, stuck in an 'o'. Independent evidence for this is that the more we try to understand just what sort of gift this offering of room for reunion is, we more we find madness.

Just remember, as my son the scientist says, "The Truth is out there."

Archbishop Akinola speaks up: Apostolic Constitution necessitated by Anglican failed leadership.

In a statement issued by Archbishop Peter Akinola, chair of the GAFCON Primates, an organization of self appointed guardians of Anglicanism in the Global South and elsewhere, he pins the need for the Apostolic Constitution on Anglican Groups squarely on the failure of the "instruments of Communion to do their job in disciplining The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada.

He states,

"We are, however, grieved that the current crisis within our beloved Anglican Communion has made necessary such an unprecedented offer. It represents a grave indictment of the Instruments of Communion whose very purpose is to strengthen and protect our unity in obedience to our Lord’s clear command. Their failure to fully address the abandonment of biblical faith and practice by The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada has now brought shame to the name of Christ and seriously impedes the cause of the Gospel."

The indictment of the Instruments of Communion is preparation for the next round - the argument by the Global South Primates and others that the Anglican Communion as currently organized is not able to provide the unity needed. It will remain for the GAFCON Primates to provide an alternative structure for a world wide Anglican Church, using the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (FOCA) which exists in one form or another of organization now in the US, Canada, England and South Africa.

This new Anglican Church will subscribe to the Jerusalem declaration, recognize ACNA, build its own structures, and dismiss the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Lambeth Conference, those bishops who don't buy in, and laugh the Anglican Consultative Council out of the hall. It will pay lip service to the Anglican Covenant believing that the Covenant will be eviscerated by the west, whose dentists will pull out its teeth of judgment and whose surgeons will cut out its purity of heart.

It will turn its gaze South and locate its offices there. Often in the past few years Alexandria, Egypt has been mentioned, but who knows?

But in terms of the latest from Rome, it will use the fact of this offer as one more example of incompetence by the Instruments of Communion and the whole of the Anglican Communion in its westward decadence.

Isn't it nice to hear Akinola's voice again? He's been quiet, what with his successor having been elected in Nigeria and others carrying the load.

But he is back, and will be looking for a new job one of these days. If the deposed bishop of Pittsburgh can become an Archbishop of something perhaps the retired Archbishop of Nigeria can become a super Metropolitan.

Stranger things have happened. Yes?

This is not what Jesus had in mind. I am sure of it.

The Global South Primates met in late October and issued this statement "A Pastoral Exhortation to the Faithful in the Anglican Communion" It is considerably more polite.Oddly, Archbishop Akinola is also chair of the GS Primates as well. Ah, how odd it is.

And now for Evangelism, done from the ground up.

Great video on how the people of the Diocese of Iowa tell the Good News they have to tell. We CAN do evangelism in lots of ways. This is a fine example. GO IOWA!

Anglicanorum Coetibus: Pass the Groups.

The Apostolic Constitution on Anglicans wishing to become Roman Catholic has been published. There are lots of words on all this. Here are some more.

It is called, "APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTION ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS PROVIDING FOR PERSONAL ORDINARIATES FOR ANGLICANS ENTERING INTO FULL COMMUNION WITH THE CATHOLIC CHURCH." The phrase "Anglicanorum Coetibus" meaning rougly,"on the groups of Anglicans," a phrase also found in the first sentence of the document. The word "Coetibus" means groups in this context but other possibilities include the following,"meeting, encounter, (political or illegal) assembly; union; band, gang, crowd; social intercourse (w/hominium), society, company; sexual intercourse." The matter of "coeti.." apparently has to do with the idea of affiliation, as in people who affiliate with one another or with an brand, or more sexually, who are pelvic affiliates, and much in between.

What makes these groups Anglican? Apparently it is that they affiliate themselves with something like Anglican values, liturgy and so forth. It is not at all necessary for these groups to actually be related to the Anglican Communion, but rather to have some patina of Anglican folkways. The Apostolic Constitution affirms Fr. Tony Clavier's observation, published over on Covenant, in his article "Anglican?". It is worth quoting his remarks at some length:

"During the past year two events challenge this traditional use of the term “Anglican”. The first was the creation of the Anglican Church in North America. The second, this week was the announcement that the Roman Catholic Church is to create Anglican Ordinariates for those who in faith and conscience have either left Provinces or the Anglican Communion or contemplate so doing.

Involved in all this is a linguistic shift of some importance. When I was exercising the episcopate in what is termed now a “continuing church” it was often suggested to me that my ecclesial body could not use the term Anglican in self-description because it was not in communion with Canterbury. When I sought a ruling from +Robert Runcie, then Archbishop of Canterbury he replied that the relationship was “fluid”: a delightful and typically Anglican fudge.

Rome now seems to interpret the term to mean a tradition, an ethos, a way of doing liturgy and perhaps pastoral work, or a cultural-religious phenomenon. In affirming such an interpretation in formal canonical language it does Anglicanism no favor. While “Communion-Anglicans” are struggling with the matter of structural and ecclesial integrity, concerning the breadth and limits of autonomy, Rome issues a Constitution which logically suggests that Anglicanism has no ecclesial and structural integrity at its core, but is rather a “spiritual” and traditional phenomenon, the essence of which may be captured and preserved without reference to what it actually is.

Anglicans should be concerned that we are seen no longer as a Church of Churches, but rather a flavor!"

"Anglicans should be concerned that we are seen no longer as a Church of Churches, but rather as a flavor!"

Exactly so.

The most famous of the groups asking for a home in Rome is the Traditional Anglican Communion which is not at all part of the Anglican Communion. Some bishops, clergy and laity in Churches in the Anglican Communion are apparently interested. In any event the invitation is now out there. Looking at ANGLICANORUM COETIBUS it is easy to see why some consider this a graceful and open invitation. It goes a long way to giving these Anglican-like communities a place in the Roman Church. At the same time it degrades what Churches in the Anglican Communion claim - apostolic succession, valid priesthood, legitimate sacraments, a right to be ordered without the imperial hierarchy of Rome, freedom from the workings of dogmatic excess, and so forth. At the same time all those who have been working for a clearer Anglican sense of unity and self-definition are debunked by a system that will lead systematically to a return in a very few years to the end of this Anglican-like subset of Roman Catholic order.

Much has been said about how Anglican clergy who are married can be transferred over. Perhaps even some seminarians. Nothing has been said about the next generation of clergy, except that "§ 2. The Ordinary, in full observance of the discipline of celibate clergy in the Latin Church, as a rule (pro regula) will admit only celibate men to the order of presbyter. He may also petition the Roman Pontiff, as a derogation from can. 277, §1, for the admission of married men to the order of presbyter on a case by case basis, according to objective criteria approved by the Holy See."

By this I suggest that the Pope means to accept mostly those clergy who are married and come over, but that future clergy will conform to the discipline of celibate clergy. Bye bye married clergy.

The clever solution of the bishop "thing" is to ordain married bishops who come over and give them priest in bishops clothing status, along with all the powers of the bishop as Ordinary, save the ones that set bishops apart from priests. That also is a stop-gap measure. In the end as these former bishops who have "come over" retire or die new "ordinaries" will be named who are part of the "Personal Ordinariates" who are celibate and who can then be full bishops, without the mumbo jumbo of calling up mitered priests.

So the Pope has extended an invitation to Anglican like groups. The more Anglican they are the less likely they will be to accepting the invitation. Either one believes that Anglicans have a legitimate hold on apostolic mission and ministry, on legitimate order and on sound faith, or not. If one believes Anglicans are indeed part of the catholic faith, then this invitation is unnecessary and unbecoming. If one does not believe Anglicans are legit, then the sooner one leaves off being an Anglican affiliate the better.

Fortunately, many of those who would leave for Rome under these conditions have already left, or never were part of, Churches in the Anglican Communion.

If I may say so, speaking simply as an Episcopalian sort of Anglican, we are not an Anglican group. We are an Anglican Church. We don't do that "coetibus" thing. Well, at least not in public.

Report in on a Sunday evening

It was a stunning day out there where the bay meets the ocean. So, accompanied by several friends I went a-boating. Still learning how to safely get about in this boat, so I've not until today gone out on to the Ocean. Today was the day. Strong currents but calm seas. Beautiful.

It was good to be back at St. Peter's after two weeks away. Choir at 8, good sermon both times, fine turnout and good news about a young person in the parish who had the flu and is recovering.

Meanwhile back in Anglican blogland some recommendations and some oddities:

Anglicans Online publishes a "cover" essay each week. The one today was especially good and suggests that church from the ground up can be practiced by as simple a means as the UTO Blue Box. Read it HERE.

The beginning of the Anglicans Online article ruminated about "creeping centralization" in Anglican churches. This is unfortunately the reality, both in individual "provinces" and in the Anglican Communion as a whole. This, just at a time when a combination of networking (in a gen x sort of way) and decentralization seem to be the real need.

We unfortunately rumble about wringing our hands at the "loss" of a central evangelism office, or the reduction in staff at a diocesan level, when we might otherwise be delighted that evangelism and outreach and education and such be in the hands of locals, networking with one another about best ways to do these things.

So it is with some amusement to see that on Baby Blue she gives us a look-see at part of the New York Times interview with ACNA Archbishop Robert Duncan, deposed bishop of Pittsburgh. The section that stood ought enough to be quoted by her is this,

" NYT: We should point out that you were deposed from ministry of the Episcopal Church by the presiding bishop, Katharine Jefferts Schori, after you threatened to have your diocese in Pittsburgh secede.

Duncan: That was a year ago, but what’s interesting is that virtually no one in the Anglican world accepted that sentence. Within two weeks of being deposed, I was received at Lambeth Palace in London by the archbishop of Canterbury, who continues to consider me a bishop."

Well all that has to do with one sort of centralization or another. Duncan got deposed from TEC, accepted in good standing by The Province of the Southern Cone, formed a new church and became Archbishop Duncan.

Duncan sets high marks on being "received at Lambeth Palace." The photo accompanying that seemingly central event is however of the gatehouse at Lambeth, not Lambeth Palace itself. Such a little thing. But it made me smile.

Being received by the Archbishop of Canterbury at Lambeth or elsewhere is a fine thing, but it says little or nothing about being brought into the center. Just as it says nothing about doing the decentralized networking work of people who figure that getting to church before the end of the processional hymn is doing pretty well at being centralized, and giving to and praying for mission is quite sufficient.

Follow her link to the NYT article, which article is pretty limp.

Over on Confessions of a Carioca, Dan Martins is doing a fine job at hacking away at issues concerning ecclesiology. Of course I don't agree with all he has to say. It wouldn't be any fun otherwise. But he writes very well and places some of the issues in clear terms so that we can actually discuss them. Parish theological discussion groups could do well to read these essays. They are good provocation for discussion. Go on over there and read his latest, HERE.

That's it. More later. As always it seems a good time to stay below the radar, do some good somehow, and trust in the Lord.

Well, there you are: Archbishop of ACNA understands ACNA as a new denomination.

The New York Times asked Robert Duncan, deposed bishop of Pittsburgh and Archbishop of the Anglican Church in North America, "How large is this new denomination of yours?" He responded, "In June, when the Anglican Church in North America was constituted, there were 702 congregations. Right now there are 755."

That was two days ago and granted the article, by Deborah Solomon, was printed as an "Interview...condensed and edited."

But the interesting thing is Duncan does not deny that ACNA is a new denomination. This in contradistinction to the notion that ACNA is the instrument by which his "call now is to lead all those Anglicans who stand where Anglicans have always stood."

This is NOT the continuing real successor to the Episcopal Church, which church has slipped into apostasy and heresy. This is a new thing, a new denomination. That means that all this business of claiming to be the rightful benefactor and holder of persons, places and things related to The Episcopal Church is hokum.

ACNA and Duncan have formed a new denomination, different from any other denomination. They are not the inheritors of The Episcopal Church. They may attempt to be the usurpers. But that is a different story.

The New York Times did not follow up on that possibility.

He also had odd things to say about the Presiding Bishop:

"Bishop Schori heads the Episcopal Church in this country, and you opposed her election in 2006?

She was the least qualified, the least experienced, of the candidates, but I hoped that what she would bring if she were elected was the kind of grace that women often bring. She turned out to be far harder, far less willing to bend or compromise, than any of the men."

So what is his problem? That she was least qualified? No it is that she might have brought "the kind of grace that women often bring." She was not feminine enough? She did not conform to his idea of what a woman's grace might consist of? Come on.

He doesn't like her because she doesn't give way to men.

This inteview with the New York Times is a disaster.

The Living Church headline bias clear.

The Living Church, which has undergone some useful changes with its new executive Christopher Wells in the chair. But the writer of the headlines still seems not to get it. That persons gives us false information and clear bias. The headline proclaims "Former TEC Dioceses Welcome Congregations." However, the entities in question are not the "former dioceses" of anything. They are entities made up of people and bishops from dioceses of The Episcopal Church who have left, formed new dioceses related to other Provinces of the Anglican Communion or the new Anglican Church in North America (ACNA) and are now welcoming congregations.

The TEC Dioceses still exist and still conform to the understanding that a diocese is a jurisdiction with particular boundaries and consists of those churches related to TEC within those boundaries.

The new dioceses forming ACNA do not operate with that sense of geographical connection and there is already some sense that the bishops of these dioceses will have jurisdictional responsibility only to the particular parishes, clergy and people that sign up to join that diocese. There will be no sense that, say, the ACNA bishop of Pittsburgh, will have any sense of a pastoral charge to Pittsburgh or to the region around Pittsburgh. Similarly the Anglican Mission in the Americas (AMiA) will have no particular local jurisdiction but rather a jurisdiction made up of parishes scattered throughout a region of the United States.

The notion of the diocese grounded in specific cities and adjacent lands is by ACNA cast aside. One of the odd results is that in a particular city there might be one parish that is related to CANA (Convocation of Anglicans in North America), one related to AMiA, one part of the diocese formed in the area by those who left the Episcopal Church diocese, and one related to a diocese elsewhere in the ACNA family. Each of these churches could have different locations for their ecclesial oversight. And because each group has a different flavor, sense of what is right and honorable, etc, the end result could be fragmentation and dashed hopes for any sort of episcopal stability. The clergy of these four groups might all work together with some grace. On the other hand they might not.

The entities that the Living Church is reporting on are not dioceses in the traditional sense at all, nor are they the "former" dioceses of TEC. They are a new thing. It remains to see if they are vainly invented.

Its Margaret...it is right and good and a joyful thing... and she says it all...

Here at Preludium we write a lot. Maybe it is time to simply throw in the towel. Sometimes someone else writes the perfect essay. Here it is:

Over on leave it lay where Jesus flang it "its margaret" has written the essay I wish I could have written. It is titled, the up-side down dance... time to walk away from that table. "

READ IT and come back to IilwJfi again and again for more wonderful stuff.

Sometimes when I read what others write I feel like chopping my fingers off and ripping the lungs out of my computer. Happens that way with poetry as well.

Ah, but then I think, "one day, one day..."

Writing is usually a promissory note.

The Bishops of the West Indies speak out, why can't the BIshops of Uganda, or here for that matter?

George Conger writes, in an article on the Bishop of the Bahamas denunciation of the government's plan to restore capital punishment that Bishop Boyd said, “The disregard for human life and a perverted value system which allows a person to maim or to kill another in a dispute, are realities that capital punishment cannot ever address, even though a hanging may satisfy the desire for retribution." (Bishop says no to capital punishment)

The article notes that Bishop Boyd takes his cue from an earlier call by the Bishops of the Church of the West Indies.

"At their Nov 2008 meeting, the House of Bishops of the Church of the Province of the West Indies called for an end to capital punishment. “Mindful of our Blessed Lord’s repudiation of ‘an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth,’ and, that in our prayer, study, reflection and experience, the death penalty has not been proved to be a deterrent,” the bishops called on “our people to stand with us in our opposition to the death penalty.”

The clarity of Bishop Boyd's statement and his courage in speaking out leads to this question:

Why can't the Church of Uganda do the same, or for that matter the Province of the West Indies, the Church of England or The Episcopal Church as concerns Uganda's outrageous proposal of a new law providing capital punishment for homosexual acts?

Well, some say, Bishop Boyd is speaking to his own government, not to a foreign government. He has the backing of his own house of bishops already. He is not putting the leadership of a fellow church, the Church of Uganda, in harm's way by his own actions. He is speaking to his own about a problem in the community where he has jurisdiction.

Capital punishment is practiced in many states in the United States of America, in many other countries, as a punishment related to various crimes. The question is, do any of these reasons warrant support by Christians? The answer is NO.

Reports are that the Church of Uganda has opposed the death penalty regarding "aggravated homosexual acts" but supported the increased criminalization of homosexuality. This is considered by some to be a step in the right direction. This is nonsense. The proposed law is an instrument of hate and the object of hate is the final elimination of the hated.

Changing Attitudes quotes Okello Lucima, a Ugandan political economist and policy analyst, who says this:

"The sponsors of the bill, their supporters and political leaders- inside and outside parliament- must be identified, isolated and ostracised by the entire civilised world that respect difference and diversity. Most democratising societies have laws that criminalise purveyors of hate and incitement of hatred against a person, persons or communities; and have robust bill of rights that protect citizens and minorities. Uganda should not be an exception.”

Mr. Lucima has it right. This is about hate and about the protection of minorities. The capital punishment threat works. The lengthy imprisonments that are the alternative are threats that work. And all to keep hidden and quiet the reality that there are homosexual persons in Uganda and they are citizens and members of the churches.

The primary spokespersons in the Anglican Communion have been the primates, collectively or individually. Not one has spoken on the issue of the Ugandan legislation as hate legislation.

This stuff is not about capital punishment, although that would otherwise be enough to warrant outrage. This is about adding fuel to the fire, so that all homosexual persons in Uganda will fear the State and keep themselves hidden. It is the use of Faggots to burn out any voice or rights for all homosexual persons in Uganda and for that matter anywhere the reach of that violence can be extended.

And all this from the Church of Uganda whose martyrs were punished by death at the hands of the King. All this from the Church of Uganda whose western gate keeper for missionary engagement in Uganda says, " “If we don’t know you … we can’t assume we share [the same faith] in common.” (From HERE.)

Perhaps we don't know each other. Perhaps we don't share the same faith in common. We Christians have come a long way from burning each other at the stake. More and more of us believe that Capital punishment is flat out wrong. More and more of us believe the threat of that as a way to silence and subdue individual and group voice is wrong.

The question is, when will our "instruments of Communion" find a voice to counter that of rising hate?

Changing Attitude's challenge to Anglican Churches

The Changing Attitude blog proclaims, "The Anglican Communion is committed to the inclusion and pastoral care of LGBT people."

I think it should read, "The Anglican Communion is perhaps committed to the inclusion and pastoral care of LGBT people."

Colin Coward argues with some persuasion, that Lambeth 1998 and the Windsor Report cast their statements "rejecting homosexual practice as incompatible with Scripture," (Lambeth 1.10) and calling "for a moratorium on all such public Rites (of blessing), and recommend that bishops who have authorised such rites in the United States and Canada be invited to express regret that the proper constraints of the bonds of affection were breached by such authorisation" (Windsor Report) against a wider backdrop of pastoral care and inclusion of LGBT people.

Coward states, "The Anglican Communion has already given full support to the inclusion of LGBT people in every Province of the Communion – not full inclusion in every order of ministry and with equality in relationships, obviously, but inclusion nevertheless. We LGBT advocacy groups have been slow to see this."

Well, on the one hand he is right, particularly when one remembers that Lambeth 1998, 1.10 also commended "to the Church the subsection report on human sexuality," a report which was more clearly in support of inclusion and pastoral care, and the Windsor Report was careful to demand that care be taken that gay and lesbian persons be accorded respect.

By comparison to the law being considered in Uganda and the continuing civil prejudice against all matters pertaining to the gay and lesbian members of various states, the Lambeth Resolution and the Windsor Report come up smelling like roses. And, if we were to hold the Church of Uganda and other churches to the full import of Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report and accountability to their broader spirit, then perhaps yes, we could say, "the Anglican Communion is committed to the inclusion and pastoral care of LGBT people."

The problem is, of course, that that is no more true than it is that "the Anglican Communion" has spoken in Lambeth 1.10 in a definitive way when the Lambeth Conference says, it "cannot advise the legitimising or blessing of same sex unions nor ordaining those involved in same gender unions." All resolution 1.10 can say is that the majority of the bishops at that conference "cannot advise..." They cannot advise, but they cannot order either. The Anglican Communion is not the sort of thing that can have commitments or not. The churches of the Anglican Communion have such commitments, come out in support of the inclusion and pastoral care of LGBT people, etc.

Changing Attitude (CA)is a wonderful organization and Colin Coward is a person of great patience and prophetic abilities, and perhaps he is speaking in a way that will turn the minds and hearts of the Church of Uganda and other churches to the truth that Lambeth 1.10 and the Windsor Report contain affirmations of the place of LGBT persons in the church and the pastoral care they deserve. Lord knows they get neither in many places - neither affirmation nor pastoral care.

Perhaps the CA's carefully written essay will cause some to realize that they have misread or misinterpreted the mind of the bishops at Lambeth or the writers of the Windsor Report, and that they need to receive the word with greater care. Inclusion and pastoral care ARE both implicit and explicit in the wordings of Anglican Communion documents. The admonishments to inclusion and pastoral care are in many of the member churches simply ignored.

To the extent that there is any such thing as the Anglican Communion it is represented through the "instruments of Communion" - the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lambeth, the Anglican Consultative Council and the Primates Meetings. As Colin Coward stated,

"The Communion has never understood what it committed itself to in the fullness of resolution 1.10. Conservatives think they won a victory over any accommodation for gay people in the Communion. That isn't what Windsor, Lambeth 1.10 and Lambeth 1978.10 committed the Communion to. All three documents provide absolute authority and support for the inclusion and pastoral care of LGBT people in every Province.

This is why the proposed Ugandan and Nigerian legislation should be opposed by the Anglican Church in both countries with support from every Province and Primate.

The Communion should be working to revoke all residual colonial legislation which criminalizes homosexuality.

If I had been more alert to the authority given by Lambeth 1.10 and Windsor, I would have been challenging the Communion to respond to words spoken, action taken and legislation proposed which failed to protect the safety and pastoral care of LGBT people.

The delay, prevarication and silence over the Ugandan and previously the Nigerian legislation, I now see as a deliberate failure to act on the commitment voted for by a majority of bishops in 1998 and by the Primates in endorsing the Windsor Report."

The Changing Attitudes statement ends by stating, "Windsor and 1.10 have committed the Communion to an affirming attitude to homosexuality. This must be the basis of Anglican policy."

It is a powerful claim on what have become central documents in the conversations among Anglican churches. More importantly the demand that the churches speak out against the repressive legislation in several countries is a demand that must be heard.

I just wish we could make demands that don't rely upon documents that can only recommend or advise against this or that behavior or action.

Perhaps the demand is based on something like this: "In as much as you have done it to the least of these my sisters and brothers, you have done it to me."

If we condone the killing of our GLBT brothers and sisters we do it to Christ. If we insult, or demean or allow to languish in prison the least of these, we insult, demean or imprison Christ. At least that's how I read it. And I believe those words carry a bit more weight than do the very imperfect words of resolutions that "cannot advise" and "reject."

And yet... the essay has great power. Read it HERE.

Further Reflection on National Youth Workers Convention

I posted earlier my attending the National Youth Workers Convention in Cincinnati, Ohio. It is of course the Rector of all Lewes' fault.I learned a lot, got at chance to meet other people in the Youth Ministry work and got a new read on the extent to which American Protestant Christianity (APC) is on a very different page than many, if not most, Episcopalians. Conservative or Progressive, or whatever, we Episcopalians are far too sacramentally inclined, and far too given to poetic sensibility to be part of the evangelical enterprise as represented by most of the youth ministers at this conference.

It was a good experience. I was part of a six member gang from Delaware. Our Diocesan Youth Ministry Director, Teri Valente, four others - Lynn, Sally, Kat and Britta and I spent some time each day reflecting of the days' doings.(I wonder if I spelled their names right?) Teri has been to many of these events, as have some others. They helped put much of what was going on in perspective.

On Sunday we Delaware Episcopalians trooped off to the 10 AM All Saints Day Eucharist at Christ Church Cathedral. It was a real joy to discover that Dean Jim Diamond was there. Jim and I were in campus ministry and The Episcopal Society for Ministry in Higher Education in an earlier incarnation. He preached a fine reflective sermon and I was reminded just how gentle and kind a man he is.

Most of the last full afternoon of the Conference (Sunday) was taken up with workshops (labs). I attended one on a research project on homosexuals titled "What We Don't Know About Gays and Lesbians: Research for a Productive Generation," and another on St. Patrick as a missionary model for youth ministry.

The research project was led by and reported on by Andrew Marin. His major claim to fame with this Conference is that last year he gave the first workshop at this conference in which fact that young people are dealing with issues of sexual identity was acknowledged and talked about.

A lot of the churches represented in this conference have apparently decided that gay and lesbian persons are sick or evil. In that light, his essential message - that young people who come out need to be treated with respect, given safe space to talk about the fact without rejection and given time, as much as necessary, for God to work in their lives - is an important pastoral point and fairly courageous. Most of the participants in the workshop seemed to want to find some way to be accepting of young people who have come out without affirming homosexuality itself. Had he been speaking from or to a more progressive group I think Andrew might have been pushing the same thing, but with the caution to progressives that we progressives often affirm but do not actually accept (in practice.)

I ended up feeling that Andrew was very constrained in his need to keep from being dismissed entirely by the evangelical push of the group. Some folk who comment on this and other blogs write about the pressures that exist to conform to either the progressive or to the conservative agenda, depending on the diocese and the times. I felt that was Andrew's situation, and at other times during the conference I felt that pressure working on me. It was a discouraging, difficult and useful experience.

The second workshop was on St. Patrick and Youth Ministry as Missionary. It reminded me of the good work of Bishop William Godfrey when he was in Uruguay. He proposed that mission work be done by small groups, rather than by individuals; that they organize their ministry and daily life under the rubric that every action of social betterment be accompanied by a parallel action of worship or prayer. So the symbol of the church in its development is that of a skeletal fish, with Christ the head, the backbone the church and the vertebrae, upper and lower, the worship and action efforts of each mission effort. The model of mission involves use of action and prayer as one.

Every evening there were meetings in "The Big Room." These were a mix of inspirational and testimonial talks accompanied by a great deal of music and some prayer. Several speakers were very good, but on the whole the time was sort of a "tribal present" version of TV evangelism.

The efforts to get everyone to sing resulted in a somewhat muted response. The band was loud, but the audience was not. I think the evangelical noise met the post modern cynicism and the enthusiasm of the first was muted by the distrust of meta-narrative music of the other.

There is a side to militant Christian evangelical music that is only a slim way away from militant Islam, The Wall (of Pink Floyd fame) or radical right or left wing political ideology in general. Songs like "My God is a Mighty God" sung by the conference band again and again promote the notion that "My" God is the one with real muscle, moxie and power. It is, however, a terrible mistake to confuse God for "My God," even if "My God" is the god of all good, true and faithful Christians. The triumphalism of this sort of music makes my skin crawl. I have to confess similar feelings about "Glorious things of Thee are spoken," mostly because of the music. Group flag saluting music with militant flavor needs to be used with extreme caution. Then again, maybe I'm just an ol' fart. No...wait. I am an ol' fart. But really, this triumphal business has got to go.


Closing Thoughts:

The conference was genuinely helpful for those involved in youth ministry and affirming of our work. This is a good thing, since the half-life of a youth minister is very short indeed. The expectations for this work is very high and the pay is very low and in the church pecking order youth ministers are pretty far down the line. So I want to thank Youth Specialties for making this possible, for Teri suggesting that we all go, and for the leaders of labs and workshops for getting us together to work on various topics of interest, and for the rest of the gang from Delaware who were a great support. If the Rector of all Lewes so disposes I think I will go again a year from now.

Jim Naughton: ace reporter and gentleperson.

There it is, in black and white, or in pixels or 0's and 1's. But in print, on the screen or in binary code the information is just stark and plain.

"Jim Naughton, the diocese’s canon for communications and advancement is resigning on December 11 to form Canticle Communications, a strategic communications consulting firm focused on churches and faith-based advocacy groups, Bishop John Bryson Chane announced last month.

Naughton, the founding editor of the Web site Episcopal Café will continue to work for the diocese as a consultant."

Episcopal Cafe is an amazing production of a whole community of participants but the idea for Episcopal Cafe grew from the mind of Gentleperson Jim Naughton, who wanted to see the blogsphere used to its very best advantage for the faith community of The Episcopal Church. It will continue, hopefully with Jim's continued consultation.

Meanwhile Jim is off to a new land, the land of "strategic communications consulting," whatever that is. If he gives up writing there will be hell to pay. So, Jim, DON'T.

And, by the by, God bless you, Jim, in all you do.

Credit where Credit is due: observations from Anglican blogland

I want to point to several essays worth the read that come from, let us say, other quadrants than Preludium's normal comfort zone.

RIGHT:

Dan Martins over at Confessions of a Carioca has written a really fine essay on All Saints, published in The Living Church for November 1. Read it HERE.

The blog / website Covenant sometimes has articles that are demanding, disagreeable and with which I have considerable problems. (But then I have problems with lots of things.) But every once and a while there is an article that is positively challenging. Craig Uffman's "Sex as Grace" is one such article. Read it HERE. It puts sexual activity in a very different place, and while it speaks in terms of traditional marriage, the vocation he calls people to in marriage is, I think, wider in scope. He says,

"... Christian sex is always trinitarian sex, for God is both the creator, sustainer, and rightful aim of Christian couples: our “hooking up” is indissolubly connected with and subordinated to God’s purpose of reconciling the world. Sure there’s pleasure, but there is a distinction between the fleeting pleasure that leaves us feeling empty the morning after and the enduring kind that testifies to a fulness and flourishing that is possible only when the Spirit acts on us so that we are able to transcend ourselves. And that distinction makes all the difference. That’s why Christian sex is a means of grace."

Now I may have some troubles with the way he states this, but the understanding of sex as a means of grace is on target. We need to find more ways to talk about sex this way.

MIDDLE:

Meanwhile among those somewhat more closely aligned associates in Anglican blogland I note with pleasure that Peter Carrell from the Province known as ACANZP (which stands for Anglican Church of Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia) has gotten a new post, namely as Diocese of Christchurch (NZ) Director of Education. Peter's blog is always thoughtful, interesting and filled with a wit worthy of the great down under. Read his blog HERE.

But not to leave out friends at closer quarters,

LEFT:

And finally from Lionel Deimel's Web Log which almost always carries some very important and helpful information about the ongoing issues in Pittsburgh and the wider Church, his latest, "Questions for the Anglican Diocese." A must read if one is to get the players and the program clear.

Bishop Stanton barks up the wrong tree so that we won't notice the bite.

Bishop Stanton of Dallas has written an article, "Diocese and Covenant: Reflections on Dallas, its History and Future that has gotten a fair bit of play in the past few days.

In this paper Bishop Stanton argues that the Diocese of Dallas has a right to sign on to the Anglican Covenant as a diocese. He states, "We possess ... not only the authority to consider and respond to the proposed Anglican Covenant, but the moral and spiritual imperative to do so. For this covenant concerns us, individually and corporately, and it concerns our future."

The Bishop is right. The Diocese can pass a resolution supporting and signing on to the Anglican Covenant. For some of us that has never been the problem. The question is should the diocese do so prior to and independent of the general Church wide discussion of the merits of the Covenant. The reason to do so is to affirm and maintain a connection to Canterbury and / or to other Provinces quite independently of what might happen at General Convention. The reason not to do so is that marshaling dioceses to sign on now, if successful, can be a way to make any discussion in General Convention moot, and further the direct relationship between dioceses and the Communion completely subverting the national and regional church structures in the process. If the Communion is about dioceses in covenant, then the future of the communion will no longer involve national or regional churches at all. Instead of it being a fellowship of churches, it will be a covenanted world wide church directly made up of dioceses. So the bishop or diocese can, but perhaps should not, sign on as a diocese. It appears Dallas has opted for signing. There it is.

His argument for the diocesan right to sign-on is irrelevant to the realities of the case. He argues that “Every Diocese is an independent and sovereign state,” using the words of Bishop Alexander Charles Garrett in 1895. Later in his argument Bishop Stanton says, "We have a goodly heritage that is at one and the same time Anglican, Episcopalian, and Texan." No mention of American, at least not as a federation of states. He is arguing that TEC is a confederation of dioceses.

The hokum of "sovereign states" as applied to states was proven by the results of the Civil War to have no final warrant. Dioceses, which were first identified with the states of the new union when it was a confederation, may have many of the characteristics of sovereign states but they do not have one. Every diocese part of The Episcopal Church must accede to the Constitution and Canons of The Episcopal Church.

The Bishop so stated saying, "The Constitution of the Episcopal Church requires that an “unqualified accession” be made by the new Diocese," and giving the reference in the Constitution of TEC. So the Bishop readily admits that the so called sovereignty of the diocese is limited by the accession clause.

His argument is that "We are not, as I have said in many places over the last few years, merely the local franchise of a great American Corporation. That was not how our forebears thought of themselves. It is not how we should think of ourselves here, today, either." So he strikes for strongly stated diocesan autonomy. Good for him.

To be honest, the matter of a diocese signing on to the Covenant is not at issue, for there is no canon or even legislation requiring restraint from doing so. There is D020 that proposes that The Episcopal Church as a whole church is to engage in the thoughtful study of the Anglican Covenant and prepare to discuss and act regarding it at the next Convention. On the one hand we perhaps could see the work in Dallas as part of that discussion. It fails to be a discussion of any depth because it short-circuits the discussion process and reaches a conclusion too soon, and so long as it is the work of a mostly autonomous diocese, unconnected to a wider conversation, both Dallas and the rest of the church miss out.

The matter at stake is this: If the Bishop's argument for almost total autonomy holds then the thread that binds the diocese to the Constitution and Canons is very fine indeed and the bishops vows to uphold the CandC are equally weakened. Further, the argument exists primarily to undercut the authority of the canon related to property held in trust. That is what this is about in a larger level now as in the past. The proposal that authority in the church is vested in autonomous dioceses is part of the more general argument that this is not a hierarchical church in the way assumed by the canons.

The bishop has produced a paper that purports to deal with one issue - the right of the diocese to sign off on the covenant. What it supports, however, is another matter: the right of a diocese to autonomy apart from its existence within The Episcopal Church and its canonical limitations.

This paper is a master of distraction - it points us towards one matter that does not require the argument for autonomy given so that when the conclusion is allowed as possible (voting to approve the Covenant) the argument will pass through as acceptable. It does so in order to promote another argument - that TEC has no right to keep a diocese from leaving with the buildings, endowments, etc, since the diocese is essentially autonomous.

The bishop barks up the wrong tree so that we won't notice the bite.

Thoughts on the National Youth Workers Covention, two days in

Two days into the National Youth Workers Convention, Cincinnati and I am still alive and well. Here I am blogging as an old learning dog.

This is a convention packaged by Youth Specialties. It is repeated three times across the country. There are about two thousand participants here.

There are several things remarkable about the conference:

(i) It is decidedly, clearly and completely evangelical in tone and outlook. The clearest example of this has been the music – a competent but mostly boring loud band doing evangelical mantra / scriptural lyrics – and the altar call presentation by Tony Campolo on Friday night.

As with most liturgical and preaching matters the best way to take it in is let it wash over and whatever remains is of value.

The music was mostly tepid until this morning when a combination of 9 AM mellow and some reasonable lyrics from old hymns at least gave the evangelical push some roots in practice.

Campolo’s presentation on Friday night was an attempt to take something of Einstein’s notion of time and apply it to the possibility of a visionary ecstatic collapse of the past, present and future into the moment. He argues that in this moment Jesus is both bearing our burdens on the Cross, experiencing the pain of our sin in his body on the Cross and experiencing with us the New Creation that is humanity and creation restored - sort of substitutionary atonement seen through the eyes of temporal relativity. I thought it was really bad science, adequate substitutionary stuff and odd but very interesting storytelling. Campolo is totally modern, no post modern stuff, not a bit of information from post modernity. Very odd.

(ii) As far as I can observe there are no persons with disabilities at the conference – not even temporary disabilities. No people in wheelchairs, carts, on crutches, with arms in a sling, none without sigh or hearing impaired. There are very few people of color here and very few persons of ethnic minorities.

The speakers have embraced modernity, but as far as I can tell none have embraced post-modern sensibilities or inventiveness. None of the analysis mentions or is built upon the efforts of post-modernist thinkers.

It made me realize that for this crowd, modernity is the front edge. The Post Modern has not yet happened. On the other hand someone in our group who has been at these meetings before said that "well, they used to talk about that, but they have moved on." They may have moved on, but they have not progressed beyond modernity.

(iii) On a much more positive side there are two thousand people here committed to youth ministry. It is wonderful to be with people who support young people in their faith and growth.

Today we had a wonderful talk by Donald Miller on narrative, personal and biblical, and narrative as the basis for mature faith. It was very well done.

In the afternoon, using a technique called “Open Space” some 1500 of us quickly were able a way to find topics of interest from within the group, split up into groups that covered all the topics in two one hour segments. It worked amazingly well. It is always wonderful to be stretched mentally and spiritually.

I have to say I am not particularly impressed with American Protestant Evangelical theology and worship, but I am appreciative of the clarity of the message. Substitutionary atonement is not the only way to go and In my mine clearly not the best, but it is not bad to hear it articulated by people who believe it is the only way to understand the work of Christ.

More to my liking was the stretch in thinking of ministry with high school students in and around their schools as campus ministry and thinking about youth ministry with the rural poor. (These were the two discussion groups I attended in the Open Space work this afternoon.)

Tomorrow, worship at an Episcopal Church in the Morning, workshops in the afternoon and evening. I am thankful for the opportunity to be here.