San Joaquin Authorizes Same-sex Blessings

I just received a press release from the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin titled “Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin Authorizes Blessing of Sacred Unions.” It says, in part:

The Rt. Rev. Chester Talton, Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of San Joaquin, has authorized the blessing of sacred unions by the clergy in the Diocese as of Sunday, June 12. Following consideration by the Equality Commission of the diocese, “the clergy in the Diocese of San Joaquin may perform blessings of same gender civil marriages, domestic partnerships, and relationships which are lifelong committed relationships characterized by ‘fidelity, monogamy, mutual affection and respect, careful, honest communication, and the holy love which enables those in such relationships to see in each other the image of God.’”

The entire press release can be read here.

This development is one more step of The Episcopal Church down a road from which there is no return. The Episcopal Church is now one more step removed from ACNA, GAFCON, and their allies.

Barnett-Cowan, Covenant Advocate

The Rev. Dr. Alyson Barnett-Cowan, Director for Unity, Faith and Order in the Anglican Communion Office, has been a strong advocate for the adoption of the Anglican Covenant. For those of us opposed to the Covenant, she has also been a very annoying one. Last year, shortly before the Church of England’s General Synod was to take up the matter of the Covenant, Anglican Communion News Service published an essay by her titled “‘For a fair and accurate debate on the Covenant, read it first,’ says Unity, Faith and Order director.”

The director’s insinuation in her November 16, 2010, tract that Covenant opponents have not read the Covenant is, in itself, deeply offensive. It is because people have read the “final text” of the Covenant that they are so upset with it. Certainly, the fact that there is a whole Web site devoted to derailing the Covenant-adoption process suggests that a substantial number of Anglicans around the world have taken the time to read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest the Covenant and, having done so, have suffered serious indigestion.

While disingenuously declaring agnosticism regarding the value of the Covenant, Barnett-Cowen proceeded to dispense half-truths and rosy views of how the Covenant will work in practice.

Barnett-Cowen continues to harp on the theme of the Covenant’s being defamed by ignorant critics. She recently spoke to the Church of England’s Diocese in Europe before its synod voted on whether to send the Covenant back to the General Synod for final approval. (As far as I can tell, no corresponding address was given by a Covenant opponent. See this story about the positive vote from The Living Church.) In a brief but telling audio interview just before the Diocese in Europe vote, Barnett-Cowen said this:

People are taken unaware by it [i.e., the Covenant], for one thing, so I have been trying to encourage people to see what it actually says instead of reacting to what they think it might say.

She then disclosed her real view of the Covenant, and it is not at all ambivalent:

If not this, what? It’s become quite clear that if we’re to be a global church, we need something that expresses how we live together as a family. It’s possible the Covenant could be improved, and we want to hear about that. But, at the moment, it’s the best thing we’ve got going for us.

The best thing we’ve got going for us if we’re to be a global church. Well, as an Episcopalian, I am quite content not be be a member of a global church, thank you very much! The beauty of the Anglican Communion as it has been in the past—something we could have “going for us” again if we chose—is that we acted like a global church when doing so was efficient and effective—providing disaster relief in faraway places, for example—and acted like a local church when dealing with liturgy and ethical norms in our individual and diverse societies.

In our fast-moving age, we should not be creating a global church with arcane procedures for deciding what is best for everyone by means of bodies that meet infrequently. Such a church will always be behind the times and the subject of ridicule, at least in some places. The need for uniformity across the Communion is doubtful; uniformity and irrelevance is deadly.

No doubt, Barnett-Cowan will continue to insult our intelligence by asserting that, if we will only read the Covenant, we will come round to seeing how wonderful it is. Likely not. If the good canon is so desirous of being a member of a global church, however, perhaps she should resign her current position and become a Roman Catholic. The Roman Catholic Church already is a global church.

Get your No Anglican Covenant merchandise at the Farrago Gift Shop.

Covenant Musings

I was thinking today about the psychological overload that must be the initial reaction of Anglicans when they first visit the Resources page of the No Anglican Covenant Web site. With so much material referenced there, how does one know where to begin? (Of course, my recently added two-part analysis of Sections 1–3 of the Covenant would be a good place to start!) The Web site does have a page of background information, but it is of little help in deciding what is most useful to read to improve one’s understanding of the Covenant.

These musings led me to begin a mental list of arguments for and against the Covenant and where those arguments have been made. I did so, my area of concern expanded. Is the Covenant good or bad in the abstract? This depends on one’s conception of the Anglican Communion, its current challenges, and its possible future. Is it wise for a particular Anglican church to adopt the Covenant? This question is particularly sticky. Even the term “adopt” has become ambiguous. In any case, the adoption decision involves not only theological concerns (or at least ecclesiological ones), but also political considerations. How will a church’s decision affect the decision of others, and can that influence be seen as positive? Is delaying a decision a good strategic move?

By now, I had moved far afield from my original question and was thinking more about what I have been reading and hearing about whether The Episcopal Church should adopt the Covenant. Much of the current conversation is making me uncomfortable. For example, there is some expectation, both here and abroad, that the 2012 General Convention will decide what The Episcopal Church will do about the Covenant. Surely, the General Convention will discuss the matter, but some are counseling delay “to see what other churches will do.” No doubt, however, other churches are waiting to see what we will do, particularly because the action of The Episcopal Church was one of the casus belli of the ongoing Anglican wars.

The Episcopal Church, I am sorry to say, has largely been in reactive mode in its relations with the wider Communion. Then Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold attended the emergency meeting of the primates in October 2003 and failed to assert both his church’s right to make Gene Robinson a bishop and the Communion’s obligation to accept that fact, even if it made some Anglicans uneasy. Our church’s subsequent behavior might best be characterized as passive-aggressive, as we sought to mollify an angry Communion, even as we really wanted to tell the likes of Peter Akinola (and even Rowan Williams) to go to hell. I believe we turned a corner in the consecration of Mary Glasspool—see “Countdown”—and I hope that the next General Convention will see our past faux obsequiousness as being in error both theologically and politically.

In particular, the General Convention should not simply kick the Covenant-decision can down the street, waiting to see what others will do. The church should actually take a stand and lead—thank the Communion for its efforts but declare them anathema to both the Gospel and the spirit of Anglicanism. We should say an emphatic no to the Covenant and focus on saving Anglicanism and, if possible and not too costly, the Anglican Communion. (See my paper “Saving Anglicanism,” written in anticipation of the 2006 General Convention.)

Actual enthusiasm for the Covenant is in short supply within The Episcopal Church, but there are General Convention deputies offering various rationales for further appeasement of those who would Romanize the Communion. One argument goes like this: The radical orthodox have already rejected the Covenant, so the Covenant will become an agreement among the moderate and liberal churches, who will not wield it as a weapon against one another. Another argument is similar and goes like this: We need to be at the Anglican Communion table; we can adopt the Covenant and vote to amend it to make it more acceptable. Each of these arguments represents a self-deluding triumph of hope over experience and logic.

Consider the argument that the radical orthodox have vowed not to adopt the Covenant. Whereas it is true that the GAFCON Primates’ Council declared that the Covenant “is fatally flawed” and that “support for this initiative is no longer appropriate,” it is unclear that GAFCON provinces will, in fact, reject it. The Covenant is not quite what GAFCON wanted, but it does have a mechanism to punish churches that innovate. The more conservative churches might sign on with the intent of amending the Covenant to strengthen that mechanism while using whatever is available to fulfill their need for doctrinal uniformity. The “accession” by South East Asia is worrisome in this regard. If most “orthodox” provinces actually do reject the Covenant, how can the Covenant keep the Communion together, which, after all, is its stated goal?

Adopting the Covenant to retain a seat at the table that will allow us to amend it to be more to our liking is something of a crap shoot. The best possible outcome would be for the Covenant to enjoy an untimely death, a possibility that cannot yet be ruled out. Its adoption by The Episcopal Church, however, will not only encourage moderate churches to sign on, but it will also provide incentive for the most conservative churches to do so as well, since being in the “first tier” of the new Communion is necessary to use the Covenant against The Episcopal Church and Anglican Church of Canada. Evaluating the likelihood of being able to amend the Covenant is not straightforward, since it depends on which churches have adopted the Covenant. (It is worth pointing out that the votes of all churches are equal when voting on Covenant amendments, whereas The Episcopal Church has a vote advantage over many churches in the Anglican Consultative Council, where Communion decisions have been made in the past.) Despite stories of the adoption of the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution, I believe that, as the Covenant comes into effect, there is going to be a reluctance to amend it before it has had a chance to prove its worth. On the other hand, those upset over the consecration of homosexual bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions will continue to press the argument that there is a crisis in the Communion. Amendments will proceed slowly; witch hunts will progress quickly.

There is, in fact, only one argument for urging The Episcopal Church to adopt the Anglican Covenant, and that is the argument that the Covenant is actually a good thing as it stands. As I suggested early, hardly anyone in the church honestly believes that it is. I pray that the General Convention will exercise realpolitik, not simply naïve optimism and servile deference to the Archbishop of Canterbury, in deciding what to do with the Covenant. If we were inventing the Anglican Communion from scratch, would the present Covenant be our ideal founding document? I think not.

This brings me back to the Web site of the No Anglican Covenant Coalition. If you believe that the Anglican Communion is the gift of God, and the Holy Spirit, not Gregory Venables, Martyn Minns, Peter Akinola, or Rowan Williams, is the driving force behind the Anglican Covenant, then nothing on the No Anglican Covenant site will convince you that the proposed agreement should be rejected. On the other hand, if you believe in free will and the innate sinfulness of humanity, then you owe it to yourself to read at least some of the criticism offered by the Coalition.

I still don’t have a definitive reading list for the person who knows little of the Covenant but who wants to know more. A good way to start, however, would be to read the Background page, followed by the Covenant itself. Good overviews are provided by Modern Church and Church Times. After reading that, you’re on your own.

Get your No Anglican Covenant merchandise at the Farrago Gift Shop.

A Critique of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant - Part 2

This is the second of two parts of an analysis of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant. (Part 1 can be found here.) In today’s installment, I discuss Sections 2 and 3 and offer some concluding remarks. A PDF version of the complete critique is available here.)

Section Two: The Life We Share with Others: Our Anglican Vocation

The second section of the Anglican Covenant begins with propositions that signatories affirm.

It is difficult to object to §2.1.1, but it is easy to be suspicious of it. What does it mean to assert that “communion is a gift of God?” If we believe that all things come of God, then surely communion does. But so do tsunamis, by that reasoning. (Christians have a tendency to attribute to God those things they like and to absolve God of responsibility for those things they don’t like. It is difficult to find a rational basis for such belief.) I think that the authors want readers to believe that the Anglican Communion is a gift of God. It is not clear just how good this particular gift is or why Anglicans, specifically, have been so blessed. In any case, arguing that the Anglican Communion is a gift of God could become an excuse for condemning any action that “tears the fabric of the Communion” as a rejection of God’s gift.

In §2.1.2, the Covenant begins to make the case for the new Anglican Communion the Archbishop of Canterbury is hoping we will all embrace, one that achieves “a more fully developed communion life.” There are many scales on which our communion life might be “more fully developed.” Churches could, for example, develop a communion life that is more tolerant, understanding, and mutually supportive. That is not the kind of development envisioned by the Covenant, however. Instead, the Covenant is luring signatories into “a worldwide family of interdependent churches,” as it is expressed in §2.1.4. “Interdependent,” of course, despite protestations in the Covenant to the contrary, means constrained, not independent, not autonomous.

The function of §2.1.3 is unclear, unless it is intended to make us feel guilty, so we will agree to adopt the Covenant.

Section 2.1.4 is not objectionable except insofar as it assumes that we desire to become “a worldwide family of interdependent churches.” I, for one, have no such desire.

Section 2.1.5 expresses the desire to see “full, visible unity of the Church,” since Jesus is reported by St. John to have prayed “that they all may be one” (John 17:21). “Being one” does not necessarily mean that all churches must unite. What would our world be like if all churches were the same, if going to one house of worship delivered the same experience as going to another? I suggest that such a world would minister to a minority of people, leaving most people outside the church. I, for one, do not lament our present diversity, either in the Anglican Communion or in the world at large. When all people have the same personality, education, ethnicity, and nationality, the Christian Church can fully unite. Until then, doing so is counterproductive.

On the basis of the assertions of §2.1, §2.2 lists commitments assumed by churches that adopt the Covenant.

In §2.2.1, signatories commit to evangelism “and, with mutual accountability, to share our God-given spiritual and material resources in this task.” What, exactly, is the “mutual accountability” called for here? Would The Episcopal Church be acting contrary to the Covenant if our evangelism doesn’t look like the evangelism of, say, the Church of Nigeria (Anglican)? Are we expected to help finance the Nigerian church’s evangelism?

I can find little to object to in §2.2.2, which is derived from the five Marks of Mission. (Other marks of mission have been suggested recently, however.) I don’t see the point of “as essential aspects of our mission in communion” in §2.2.2.e.

Section 2.2.3, 2.2.4, and 2.2.5 seem unobjectionable.

Section Three: Our Unity and Common Life

Section 3.1 enumerates more affirmations. It is here that the Covenant begins to reveal how it will transform the organization of the Communion.

Section 3.1.1 is unremarkable.

Section 3.1.2 begins with a resolution “to live in a Communion of Churches.” Perhaps you thought we were already doing that. We are not now living in the “Communion of Churches” outlined in the Covenant, however, which is living “in communion with autonomy and accountability,” arguably an oxymoron. There is a lot of gibberish here, but we can see in §3.1.2 the beginning of the institutionalization of the “Instruments of Communion” and an exalted role for bishops. (In general, the Covenant seems to see laypeople as chopped liver.) For example, §3.1.2 asserts that “[e]ach Church, with its bishops in synod, orders and regulates its own affairs and its local responsibility for mission through its own system of government and law ….” Arguably, this statement is not true of The Episcopal Church, as the House of Bishops only acts in concert with the House of Deputies in the General Convention to govern the church. Perhaps this form of governance is “incompatible with the Covenant.”

Section 3.1.3 again asserts “the central role of bishops” and speaks of “the historic threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons.” There is no role for laypeople here! By contrast, in the Catechism of the 1979 Book of Common Prayer (p. 855), the answer to the question of who are the ministers of the Church is: “The ministers of the Church are lay persons, bishops, priests, and deacons.”

It is §3.1.4 that fully establishes the four “Instruments of Communion” as permanent and essential elements of the Anglican Communion. I find this worrisome, as I believe that the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Primates’ Meeting have seriously abused their authority since 2003. (Actually, the Primates’ Meeting had no authority to abuse, so it simply attempted to appropriate authority. The primates seemed to repent of their arrogation of power at their most recent meeting in Dublin, but, when primates who stayed away from the meeting return, so may the primates’ meddling in the affairs of individual Anglican churches.) Moreover, certain primates and their allies have tried to elevate resolutions of the Lambeth Conference—well, one of them, anyway, Resolution I.10 of 1998—to the status of “the teaching of the Communion.” Given this history of abuse of power, why do we want to give more authority to these “instruments,” allowing them even more opportunity to become instruments of oppression? This section contains many phrases that reveal an intention to remake the Anglican Communion into an entity that acts in lockstep:

• our shared faith and common life and mission
• the common faith of the Church’s members
• calls the Churches into mutual responsibility and interdependence

From the standpoint of what we might call Anglican Communion polity, I am particularly concerned about the position of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In practice, he has become more than simply the spiritual head of the Communion, more than primus inter pares. Americans especially should be wary of placing a single man—I surely do not expect to see a female Archbishop of Canterbury in my lifetime—at the center of all the “Instruments.” That man is not chosen by the Communion and is not even elected in any democratic sense from his own church! When the Standing Committee recommends “relational consequences” to the Primates’ Meeting or to the Anglican Consultative Council, as described in §4.2.5, it is a group of people who have to agree on the imposition of such consequences. Such a recommendation to the Archbishop of Canterbury is imposed or not based on the will of a single person from whose decision there is no appeal.

Finally, in Item IV of §3.1.4, we find this explanation:

In the Primates’ Meeting, the Primates and Moderators are called to work as representatives of their Provinces in collaboration with one another in mission and in doctrinal, moral and pastoral matters that have Communion-wide implications.

I am unclear as to what this passage means. What is it that results from the work of the primates? Is it more interference in the affairs of individual churches? We need less, not more of that. I don’t know if the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church is authorized to perform the work specified in §3.1.4.

Acknowledging the foregoing, §3.2 sets out additional commitments that signatories assume. Each of these commitments is designed to rein in the autonomy of Communion members.

Section 3.2.1 requires churches “to have regard for the common good of the Communion in the exercise of its autonomy,” i.e., to restrain the exercise of autonomy voluntarily. It also requires churches “to endeavour to accommodate their recommendations [i.e., those of the Instruments of Communion.]”

Section 3.2.2 is an excellent example of doubletalk. It commits churches

to respect the constitutional autonomy of all of the Churches of the Anglican Communion, while upholding our mutual responsibility and interdependence in the Body of Christ, and the responsibility of each to the Communion as a whole.

In other words, the autonomy of Anglican churches is to be respected except when it isn’t. This is not reassuring.

It gets worse. Ostensibly, §3.2.3 requires that Communion members remain at the table to discuss matters of importance. Given the way meetings have been boycotted in recent years and the way certain people have been banned from those same meetings, this is a welcome obligation. But this section also asserts that some issues “may prove to be distractions or even obstacles to the faith.” Presumably, the Communion reserves the right not to talk about these issues or to discuss them interminably without reaching resolution. (It is not hard to imagine what some of these issues might be.) “All such matters therefore,” we are told, “need to be tested by shared discernment in the life of the Church.” It is this shared discernment that churches are buying into when they adopt the Anglican Covenant. This means that, until there is substantial (or perhaps even universal) agreement about certain contentious matters, no church can move forward on them. If The Episcopal Church accedes to shared discernment in the Anglican Communion, it is a fair assumption that LGBT persons will achieve equality in our church at the second coming of Christ or when hell freezes over, whichever occurs last. (Section 4 provides a preview of what shared discernment will look like in practice.)

Section 3.2.4 extends the restrictions on autonomy to agreements with other churches.

Just in case churches have not yet understood that they are surrendering their independence in adopting the Covenant, §3.2.5 obligates them

to act with diligence, care and caution in respect of any action which may provoke controversy, which by its intensity, substance or extent could threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission.

This provision establishes what Jim Naughton has called “governance by hurt feelings.” Churches are expected to intuit how others in the Communion will react to an action that may be not only justified, but even required by a reasonable interpretation of Scripture. Section 3.2.5 elevates politeness over truth.

The Covenant refers to conflicts that “could threaten the unity of the Communion and the effectiveness or credibility of its mission.” Does (or should) the Communion have a mission apart from supporting the individual churches in their missions? This is, I think, an important question. The Anglican Communion is not now a church itself, and I do not believe it should be. (I am opposed to the Communion’s negotiating ecumenical agreements, for example.) Individual Anglican churches have, in fact, painted themselves into a corner by claiming authority over and thereby taking responsibility for the actions of other Anglican churches, a responsibility that is not really theirs to assume. If Muslims try to embarrass an African church based on what, say, The Episcopal Church has done, that African church now has—if it chooses to invoke it—credible deniability. That is, the African church can assert that Anglican churches are autonomous and not subject to outside pressure or control. It is therefore not responsible for the actions of The Episcopal Church. This posture, which wisdom would have urged in the past, will not be an available option under the Anglican Covenant.

Section 3.2.6 forces churches to accept mediation in situations of conflict.

Section 3.2.7 is intended to intimidate churches into behaving as the Covenant intends them to behave.

Some Final Words

I hope that the foregoing will cause those who will be participating in the 2012 General Convention of The Episcopal Church to reconsider the notion that Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant are somehow innocuous. They are, in fact, pernicious. It is my sincerest hope that other Anglicans around the world will conclude this as well.

We should not allow Anglicans, in discussing the Covenant, to declare blithely that Sections 1–3 of the covenant are acceptable, without insisting that they explain why they believe this to be so. It is important that all Anglican churches consider the whole of the Covenant. Section 4, after all, exists to enforce what is set forth in Sections 1–3.

I hope that my critique will encourage discussion of the Covenant in greater detail. No doubt, I have minimized some threats to The Episcopal Church and to the Anglican Communion and failed to notice others. I believe that serious discussion among Episcopalians can only lead to the conclusion that the Anglican Covenant has little to recommend it.

The goal of the General Convention should be not only to defend The Episcopal Church against the depredations of an ill-advised Anglican Covenant, but also to encourage other Anglican churches to reject the Covenant as well.

A Critique of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant - Part 1

This is the first of two parts of an analysis of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant. Today, I introduce my critique and discuss Section 1. In the concluding post tomorrow, I will discuss Sections 2 and 3 and offer some concluding remarks.

Although much has been said and written about the Anglican Covenant, critics have been superficial and generous in their evaluation of its first three sections. Section 4 has been a lightning rod for criticism, which has both diverted attention from the rest of the Covenant and encouraged charity toward it so as not to be seen as uncoöperative. The devil, it is often said, hides in the details, however, and the exact wording of Sections 1, 2, and 3 is important. Churches considering adoption of the Covenant need to understand just what they are being asked to sign on to, so that they can evaluate the likelihood of their being subjected to “relational consequences” for their actions past, present, or future.

I have long thought the first three sections of the Covenant misleading and dangerous, but I have resisted the daunting task of making a systematic argument to that effect. In what follows, however, I offer a critique of Sections 1, 2, and 3 in the hope that doing so will encourage more thorough and honest discussion of those parts of the Covenant.

I undertake this task as a defender of the integrity of my church and with my skills as a technical editor, one who seeks clarity in a text and who is obliged to raise questions wherever clarity is lacking. In this instance, unfortunately, I cannot go back to the author and suggest rewording, since we have been told that the text to which churches are being asked to subscribe is the “final text.” I cannot, therefore, always provide a definitive explication of the meaning of the Covenant, but I can suggest what, in practice, it might mean. This is the best anyone can do.

I will not attempt to analyze the Introduction, which, according to §4.4.1 is not actually part of the Covenant. The Introduction is a page and a half of impenetrable gobbledegook intended to lend an air of religiosity to the Covenant and to discourage serious reading of what follows. Likewise, I will ignore Section 4 for now, which is of an entirely different character.

My observations will be of greatest interest to members of The Episcopal Church, and especially to deputies to the 2012 General Convention who will likely determine the fate of the Covenant in relation to The Episcopal Church. I trust that other Anglicans will also find my remarks helpful.

Preamble

Let me begin with the Preamble of the Covenant. Here and in what follows, I will quote the Covenant text sparingly. Readers should read my comments with the Covenant text itself readily available in order to follow my remarks.

The Preamble seems reasonably straightforward. I do find the citation of Revelation 7:9 to be both pretentious and irrelevant, but this is only a stylistic issue.

Section One: Our Inheritance of Faith

This section includes assertions that “each church affirms.”

Section 1.1.1 is certainly unobjectionable.

Section 1.1.2 is a bit problematic. What, exactly does it mean to affirm that

The historic formularies of the Church of England, forged in the context of the European Reformation and acknowledged and appropriated in various ways in the Anglican Communion, bear authentic witness to this faith.

A footnote explains that what is being referred to here are “The Thirty-nine Articles of Religion, the 1662 Book of Common Prayer, and the Ordering of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons.” The significance of the “historic formularies” has been downplayed somewhat in this draft over earlier ones. The Episcopal Church, of course, never used the 1662 prayer book, and I think that Episcopalians would not accept the Articles of Religion as a valid statement of their Anglican faith. Can The Episcopal Church “affirm” §1.1.2 in good conscience? I suspect not.

I cannot accept, and believe that The Episcopal Church cannot accept, the characterization, in §1.1.3, of the Old and New Testaments “as being the rule and ultimate standard of faith.” This formulation has tended to earn a bye by virtue of being attributed, in a footnote, to the Chicago-Lambeth Quadrilateral. Significantly, however, this particular wording appeared in the wording adopted by the 1888 Lambeth Conference. It was not part of the resolution adopted in Chicago by Episcopal bishops in 1886 and never formally adopted by the General Convention of The Episcopal Church. The wording of §1.1.3 seems to elevate Scripture over tradition and reason and could be—and almost certainly will be by some Anglican churches—seen as an assertion of sola scriptura.

Section 1.1.4 is also derived from the Chicago and Lambeth Quadrilaterals, but, again, the Covenant favors the Lambeth articulation. What, exactly, does it mean to affirm the Apostles’ Creed “as the baptismal symbol”? This seems to make no sense. And what of The Episcopal Church’s Baptismal Covenant in the 1979 BCP? Is it somehow incompatible with §1.1.4?

Section 1.1.5 also derives from the Chicago and Lambeth Quadrilaterals. What is the significance of “and of the elements ordained by him”? If wine is unavailable and grape juice is used, is this a violation of the Covenant? Perhaps this section is too specific.

I see no problems in §1.1.6.

Section 1.1.7 is clearly asserting that our churches are liturgical and, in one way or another, derive our liturgies from the first Book of Common Prayer. The phrase “shared patterns of our common prayer and liturgy” suggests a uniformity that does not exist, however. The wording is circumspect, perhaps in recognition that a distressing amount of Anglican worship is not based on the local prayer book.

What, exactly, is the “apostolic mission” referred to in §1.1.8? Do all Anglican churches understand this mission the same way?

In general, §1.1 gets into trouble by being too specific. It thereby encourages disputes regarding whether churches might be acting in a way that is incompatible with the Covenant. Doing anything to encourage such debates is not going to advance the reputed goal of keeping the Anglican Communion together.

Section 1.2 enumerates commitments of signatories of the Covenant. It is quite reactionary, although this has not been widely noted. The Covenant has a strong prejudice against change.

That prejudice is immediately apparent in §1.2.1. Churches commit

to teach and act in continuity and consonance with Scripture and the catholic and apostolic faith, order and tradition, as received by the Churches of the Anglican Communion, mindful of the common councils of the Communion and our ecumenical agreements.

When did the “Churches of the Anglican Communion” receive the faith they are supposed to uphold? Did the Church of England receive it before The Episcopal Church did? Did each receive the same faith? What about the Anglican Episcopal Church of Brazil? What are the “common councils of the Communion”? The Lambeth Conference? The Primates’ Meeting? Whose “ecumenical agreements”? Does the Anglican Communion have any ecumenical agreements? (I don’t think so.) Does The Episcopal Church have to be “mindful” of the relationship of the Church of England and the Church of Sweden, since those churches are members of the Porvoo Communion? Does the Church of Nigeria (Anglican) somehow have to be respectful of The Episcopal Church’s relationship to the Moravian Church in North America? Does anyone really know—can anyone really know—what §1.2.1 allows and what it prohibits?

Section 1.2.2 may seem innocuous on first reading, but the reality is that the Communion has many conflicting ideas about what is “the teaching of Holy Scripture,” and many would argue that that teaching has been and is now in conflict with “the catholic tradition.” Ultimately, this section will mean whatever the Standing Committee says it means. That is unlikely to be what The Episcopal Church thinks it should mean.

It is significant (and disturbing) that neither §1.2.1 nor §1.2.2 acknowledges reason as a source of authority for the Communion. Apparently, Richard Hooker is not going to be the quintessential theologian of the Anglican Communion that will be created by the Anglican Covenant. The omission again illustrates the profound prejudice the Covenant has for forever keeping things as they are, since neither tradition nor a literal reading of Scripture allows latitude for change.

As far as I can see, §1.2.3 is complete gobbledegook. I have no idea what it means. It asserts that churches commit

to witness, in this [theological and moral] reasoning, to the renewal of humanity and the whole created order through the death and resurrection of Christ, and to reflect the holiness that in consequence God gives to, and requires from, his people.

I suggest that statements like this are not helpful if a layperson like myself can make so little sense of it. This section will endear Episcopalians neither to the Covenant nor to the Anglican Communion. This is the sort of statement that gives theology a bad name.

Section 1.2.4 overall seems reasonable, but it has some worrisome eccentricities. The “communal reading of … the Scriptures” seems to suggest that we all must interpret Scripture the same way. Surely, this is unacceptable. (Section 3.2.3 elaborates this theme.) I have no idea what to do with “and costly witness to.” Is this about martyrdom or what?

Section 1.2.5, concerning the handling of Scripture, is not, in itself, objectionable. The problem, of course, is that one person’s faithful, respectful, comprehensive, and coherent interpretation of Scripture is another person’s misreading. Provisions such as §1.2.1 lead me to believe that sincerity in interpretation will not be a defense for any interpretation deemed non-traditional.

Section 1.2.6 is just fine. It is perhaps the only provision in the entire Covenant that could be viewed as “liberal.”

Section 1.2.7 is another provision whose meaning is obscure. What does it mean to act “in accordance with existing canonical disciplines”? The Anglican Communion itself has no canons, so what canons are being invoked here? What does it mean “to nurture and sustain eucharistic communion”? I suspect this means that no church should do anything that would cause another church to declare broken or impaired communion. If so, it is another instance of a prejudice against any church’s rocking the Anglican Communion boat.

The final clause of §1.2.8 sounds lovely. But the notion of pursuing “a common pilgrimage with the whole Body of Christ” is another instance of the Covenant insisting that no church can do anything novel unless the whole Communion goes along. Here, in fact, there is a suggestion that all Christians, not just all Anglicans must agree. Thank you, no, I prefer a church that’s alive to one that’s preserved in formaldehyde.

Part 2 can be found here.

Getting the National Anthem Right

The Pirates are playing the Cubs at Wrigley Field this afternoon, and I just heard the national anthem sung before the start of the game.

Why is it that we often choose popular singers to sing our anthem at sporting events? More to the point, why do we choose people (1) who don’t seem to know or understand the words of “The Star Spangled Banner” and (2) who insist on augmenting the tune with ornamentation designed to show off, rather than to honor the nation? Why, in fact, do singers largely embarrass themselves when singing the national anthem, rather than taking the opportunity to enhance their reputations by displaying their competence, rather than their “originality”?

I raise these questions because the anthem was sung in Chicago today not by a soloist, but by a women’s chorus—not a girls’ chorus—of about 20 singers. (Unfortunately, the chorus was shown on television only briefly, so I neither caught the name of the group nor had time to count the singers.) The group used a straightforward choral arrangement whose only surprise was the last chord. The performance was, however, the most exciting rendition of “The Star Spangled Banner” I have heard in a long time.

If you are responsible for selecting singers of the national anthem for a sporting event, please take note.

Growth of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh

In the Lent 2011 issue of Trinity, the newsletter of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, includes a story titled “Seven Parishes Join Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh.” It describes the addition of new parishes to the diocese, mostly in Illinois, but one as far away as Minnesota.

Pittsburgh newspaper readers no doubt have the impression that, since the split of the diocese in October 2008, the Anglican diocese is thriving, but the Episcopal diocese is not. Certainly, that is the impression one might take away from reading the reported numbers of members or parishes in each diocese. But the Anglican diocese has grown largely by the absorption of parishes outside the traditional boundaries of the Southwestern Pennsylvania diocese.

Bob Duncan and his Anglican Church in North America can, as far as I am concerned, organize itself in any way it wants to, so long as it is not stealing property from The Episcopal Church. It is ironic, however, that a church whose rhetoric emphasizes its commitment to “traditional Anglicanism” is willing to develop non-contiguous dioceses. Tradition in the definition of dioceses is not really the issue, however, so much as are the pragmatics of being a real diocese. The Anglican Church of the Trinity, one of the new “Pittsburgh” parishes, is more than 850 miles by car from the office of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. Can the clergy and laypeople of such a congregation participate meaningfully in the life and governance of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh? I doubt it.

The Bishop Search Comes to St. Paul’s

After the 10:30 service today, representatives from the diocesan Nomination Committee held a meeting in the undercroft of St. Paul’s, Mt. Lebanon, to solicit views of parishioners to help the committee develop a profile of what the diocese is seeking in a new bishop. The meeting was run by Dana Phillips, the committee’s chair and someone known to many at St. Paul’s. She was assisted by committee member Frank Yesko.

I had spent some time thinking about what I wanted to say to the committee, but I had no idea what the format of the meeting would be. In fact, the committee had developed a series of questions, and participants were asked to pair off and interview one another, recording responses to the questions on a form provided. The relevance of some of the questions was not immediately apparent to me, but I was pleased that the questions were general enough that I could say all that I wanted to say to the committee.

After participants were given about half an hour to complete their interviews, the forms were collected, and the floor was opened to questions and comments. Since people had already said much of what they wanted to say, the question period was brief, though several matters of interest were raised:

1. Several people expressed the view that no candidates should come from our own diocese. Dana made it clear that the committee intended to consider all potential candidates on the basis of their qualifications, showing no preference as to sex, race, canonical residence, etc. (Personally, I think the committee should have a strong, if not absolute, prejudice against local candidates, who would necessarily elicit strong reactions, both pro and con, when their candidacy is announced.)
2. I suggested that candidates should not be too young. (Dana noted that objections have been raised in other parishes both to very young and to very old candidates.)
3. It was suggested that candidates should be “moderates.” (I, on the other hand, want to see candidates as liberal as we can get away with. I am tired of our diocese being on the fringes of The Episcopal Church. I want a bishop in the Episcopal Church mainstream, not the Pittsburgh mainstream—i.e., 20 years behind the times.)
4. Concern was raised about the dangers of nominations from the floor. (Bob Duncan was nominated from the floor.) Dana assured the group that such nominations would not be allowed.
5. The committee was warned to avoid candidates that seem too eager to be bishop.

For parishioners who could not attend the meeting, forms were left with the rector, so that those people could have their voices heard. Dana also indicated that the committee would post an on-line form on the diocesan Web site at some later time.

I found the program reassuring. The Nomination Committee seemed sincere in its soliciting the views of the people of the diocese. It will be interesting to see what kind of profile emerges from the data the committee is collecting. If the committee is truly committed to transparency, it will also release its raw data.

Abortion Vulnerability

The political right seems much better at coining seductive phrases to promote its agenda than the political left. Consider the likes of “death tax,” “job-killing,” or “pro-life.” Heaven forbid that progressives should combine the inevitable death and taxes, should want to extinguish jobs, or be seen as opposing life itself. Yet each of these examples of right-wing rhetoric is manipulative and disingenuous.

The most recent issue of Trinity, the official publication of Bob Duncan’s Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh, has introduced me to yet another crafty neologism from the political (and religious) right—“abortion-vulnerable.”

The Lent 2011 issue contains a story titled “New Pro-life Non-Profit finds Support among Anglicans.” (I don’t know what style guide would permit both “Pro-life” and “Non-Profit,” but grammatical consistency is not really the subject of this essay.) The article promotes a “new Christian endeavor in the Pittsburgh area” to discourage women from choosing abortions. The effort is the product of a non-profit called Vision for Life–Pittsburgh.

Both the article and the organization’s Web site describe the effort to drive “abortion-vulnerable women” to “pregnancy medical centers,” where, it is hoped, sonograms will discourage them from having abortions.

Normally, we do not speak of “liposuction-vulnerable,” “Botox-vulnerable,” or “facelift-vulnerable” women. Nor do we speak of “massage-vulnerable,” “shave-vulnerable,” or “financial-advice-vulnerable” men. To do so is frankly demeaning. It suggests that the consumer of a service is not so much an independent actor as a hapless victim of providers or circumstances.

To suggest that women contemplating or seeking an abortion are “abortion-vulnerable” is to deny their personhood. They are not being acted upon by inscrutable forces over which they have no control. Such a woman is not a potential disaster victim, but someone in painful circumstances faced with making an intelligent, informed decision that is necessarily a fork in the road that is her life’s journey.

Having an abortion is never a happy event, but neither is it a denial of “life” or an act of God. Women (and men) can and should make their own choices for their lives and avoid simply being abortion-foe-vulnerable.

Socks

I hate doing laundry—not the washing or drying, but the folding, hanging up, and the occasional ironing. Especially, I hate matching socks.

For some reason, I resolved to really finish doing laundry this week. That means washing everything that needs washing, putting it all away, and not having anything left over that requires repair, ironing, or, in the case of socks, matching.

This has been a multi-day project. Perhaps everything could have been done in one 24-hour period, but my aversion to the whole laundry thing and my having some sort of life not involved in doing laundry demanded that the project occasionally be interrupted for other matters such as eating, entertainment, or following the slow disintegration of the Anglican Communion.

But today has mostly been about socks. I determined that any unmatched socks or socks that were somehow defective were to be discarded. I construed as defective socks that were threadbare, had actual holes, were apparently embedded permanently with lint, or had tops that had lost elasticity. In the end, I discarded 48 socks, the equivalent of 24 pairs, though, of course, some socks were singletons.

It is those singletons that are most mysterious. Were some of their mates simply lost—left in washers or dryers, dropped on the floor, or forgotten under furniture? Perhaps they had been discarded for cause. Each unmatched sock represents a domestic mystery, usually a cold case with little remaining evidence.

I don’t like throwing socks away. It’s a little like saying goodbye to old friends. I’m sure that some of my discards today have been part of my life for decades, even if not intimate associates in recent years.

It was easier to dispose of a substantial number of white crew socks, including matched pairs, that were either quite worn or had virtually useless elastic. When buying replacements for such socks, I have usually not discarded older ones if they conceivably could be worn. Every few years, however, judicious culling is in order.

Somewhat to my surprise, when my matching and folding and discarding was through, I still had a full sock drawer, with its separate compartments for white and colored socks.

It has been a satisfying day.

Postscript. I spent a lot of time attempting to match socks. When will a sock vendor begin putting a unique serial number on each pair?

Ugly

I just received my latest copy of Time. Unsurprisingly, Osama bin Laden’s face is on the cover—with a large red X painted over it. The cover bears the label: “SPECIAL REPORT THE END OF BIN LADEN.”

One of Time’s more imaginative stories reports reactions from three of the children—now teenagers—to whom President George Bush was reading The Pet Goat when he was first told of the attack on the World Trade Center. Unfortunately that story was introduced with one of the ugliest and hardest to read pages I can remember seeing in an issue of Time. I have reproduced it below. See what you think.

Bin Laden Dead

One has to be uncomfortable in celebrating the death of anyone. It is difficult not to be happy to learn that Osama bin Laden has been killed by U.S. forces in Pakistan, however. Celebrating this death seems to be in the same category as expressing satisfaction with the death of Adolph Hitler.

The President suggested that justice has been done. That is perhaps not true, but what would justice for bin Laden really look like?

Breakfast of Champions

One of the sponsors of some old radio programs I have been listening to on CDs was the General Mills cereal Wheaties. The breakfast cereal first appeared in the 1920’s and has a surprisingly long association with sports and sports figures.

I had never given much thought to the name “Wheaties,” but, listening to the old commercials, it suddenly seemed odd and dated. The name, of course, is derived from the name of its main ingredient, wheat. According to Wikipedia, the name was the winner of an employee contest to rename what was originally called Washburn's Gold Medal Whole Wheat Flakes.

Clearly, “Wheaties” was an improvement, and it has become part of the linguistic landscape to which people seldom give a second thought. On the other hand, would you be inclined to try cereals called Cornies, or Oaties, or Ricies?

Another Poem about Christian Unity

I added another poem on the subject of Christian—and especially Anglican—unity to the Poetry section of Lionel Deimel’s Farrago today. This was not a hard poem to write, but it was a hard poem to revise and make into something satisfying. The poem is titled, perhaps not imaginatively, “That They All May Be One.” The poem and commentary on the writing of it can be found on my Web site, and the poem itself is reproduced below:

That They All May Be One
by Lionel Deimel

“That they all may be one,” they say he said,
But what of us when thus we pray?
Are not our bonds of wine and bread
Sufficient for the Church today?

Must Christians understand as one
The mysteries of God above?
Or should we learn from God the Son
That unity derives from love?

A View from Nigeria

Recently, Bishop John Akao, chair of the Church of Nigeria Theological Resource group, published an essay in Church Times under the title “Church of Nigeria and the proposed Anglican Covenant.” It appears that the Akao piece is not yet available on the Church Times Web site to non-subscribers, but it can be read at VirtueOnline.

Akao’s main interest is in explaining why Nigeria cannot sign the Anglican Covenant. His analysis of how the Covenant came to be what it is is instructive, particularly for Episcopalians who have not been paying attention to Communion affairs in recent years and are inclined to evaluate the Covenant apart from its historical context.

Whereas I hardly share Akao’s theological viewpoint, he has the history right, and, for the benefit of those newly attentive Episcopalians, I quote from his essay:

The idea of an Anglican Covenant was suggested by the Global South to check the drift of some members especially in TEC and Canada as well as some other parts of Europe like Germany and Britain in the wake of revisionist agenda manifested radically by the recognition of same -sex relationships by the Church, especially the consecration of two same-sex practitioners as bishops in The Episcopal Church of America.

Unfortunately, the original idea of covenant to bring back erring members who have embarrassed the Communion and torn its fabrics apart, was adopted by the Anglican Establishment, by fashioning a covenant which in motive, content and thrust deviate from the original objective of healing and unifying the communion. The present covenant to the African Anglicans, is crafted to persuade orthodox Anglicans to accept and commit to fellowshipping with revisionist groups who have perpetrated aberrations but who unrepentantly defy various moves and resolutions to bring them back on course.

In other words, a covenant was proposed to control the behavior of (especially) The Episcopal Church. Because the mechanisms to do that have been watered down in order to get agreement, the original intent has not been achieved.

If enough of the churches who wanted to halt the liberal trend in the West eventually do adopt the Covenant, is there any doubt that they will attempt to use it, amended if necessary, to accomplish the original objective?

Get your No Anglican Covenant merchandise at the Farrago Gift Shop.

The Covenant and the Archbishop

I continue to hear from friends in England that votes on the Anglican Covenant within the Church of England have less to do with the Covenant itself than with loyalty to Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Church of England General Synod had earlier rejected Rowan’s plan to offer stronger concessions to opponents of women bishops, for example, which made Synod members reluctant to hand the archbishop a significant defeat on the Covenant last November. Rowan, after all, seems to have put all his ecclesiastical eggs into the Covenant basket, and his church’s failure to adopt the Covenant would be supremely embarrassing.

From this side of the Atlantic, it is easy to deplore the obeisance shown to Rowan, but I can certainly appreciate it. I do feel proud when our own Presiding Bishop is appointed to a presidential commission or shows up in a television or newspaper story. I think twice before writing anything negative about our primate here or elsewhere. Certainly, the reluctance of our previous Presiding Bishop, Frank Griswold, to act against the likes of Bob Duncan inhibited effective action by others, and his and Katharine’s support for B033 was sufficiently intimidating to achieve passage by a reluctant House of Deputies in 2006.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, however, is a special case. The incumbent in that office is accorded deference not only by his own church but also by the churches and people of the Anglican Communion in his role as primus inter pares.

Alas, Rowan has increasingly become a threat to the Church of England and to the Anglican Communion. He is, in the end, a political appointee of the English government who has exploited the respect given his office to wield power he has not been granted, to interfere in the affairs of churches not his own—rumor has it that Rowan’s was the hand behind B033, for instance—and to press for a Covenant that will change the nature of the Anglican Communion and, some would say, of Anglicanism itself. Moreover, the Covenant in which he is so invested will enshrine his office as an “Instrument of Communion” and give it even more power, since, as an “Instrument,” Rowan can decide by himself whether to impose the ominous but unspecified “relational consequences” that might be suggested by the Standing Committee.

As I asserted earlier, Rowan has acted as a tyrant. Why should we adopt a Covenant that will make him even more powerful? Episcopalians have no say in who occupies the office of Archbishop of Canterbury. Why should we be any less upset than were our colonial ancestors over the Stamp Act? I say, “No vexation without representation!” Reject the Anglican Covenant and hope that Rowan has the good sense to resign.

Get your No Anglican Covenant merchandise at the Farrago Gift Shop.

A Visit with Archbishop Henri Isingoma

I was intrigued by a couple of Bishop Kirk Smith’s tweets from the recent House of Bishops meeting:

Archbishop of Congo is hopeful about the future.
46 seconds ago

Archbishop of Congo now speaking in French: Does not feel that there has been adequate discussion of the Covenant among the Primates.
6 minutes ago

When I realized that Congo’s Archbishop Henri Isingoma was in Pittsburgh for a few days, I decided that it would be interesting to talk with him. (Actually, a friend suggested that I interview him, but I recognize a good idea when I see one.)

Isingoma’s big public event in our diocese is his preaching tonight as part of the Tuesday Night Lenten Preaching Series. (Apparently, the archbishop, whose preferred language is French, gave his first sermon in English Sunday at Calvary Church. Presumably, that was a trial run for tonight’s service at St. Thomas Memorial Church in Oakmont, Pennsylvania.)

Archbishop Isingoma was at Calvary last night. He took part in a brief Eucharist before addressing Diocesan Council. The service, which freely mixed French—the dominant language—and English, was a bit disorienting for me, who knows a little Latin and a little German, but no French. There was no homily.

Before the Diocesan Council meeting began, I was able to have a little time with Archbishop Isingoma in the sacristy. The Rev. Dr. Harold T. Lewis stood by to act as translator when my questions perplexed the archbishop. (I was surprised that his restatements in French often seemed very much longer than my original questions.) The archbishop answered my questions in passable English.

I can report that Archbishop Isingoma was charming and forthcoming. His visit to the U.S., which is not his first, will last about three weeks. He is a relatively new primate, having been elected only in 2009. He explained that he missed the recent Primates’ Meeting in Dublin, however, due to a visa problem.

I asked the archbishop a few questions about his church. He told me that there are about half a million Anglicans in Congo, making it a small, though hardly the smallest, church in the Anglican Communion. Services in Congo are conducted primarily in Swahili, but also in French and in several indigenous languages.

Because Episcopalians are perpetually trying to explain to other Anglicans that we elect our bishops, I was interested in learning how Province de L’Eglise Anglicane Du Congo selects its archbishop. Isingoma was, in fact, elected by secret ballot by the church’s House of Bishops.

This information offered an opportunity for me to ask Isingoma’s impression of our own House of Bishops. His answer was a bit surprising: at Kanuga Conference Center, he was struck by encountering so many bishops in one room. (His own church has but eight dioceses!) He noted a fact I had never considered, namely that our own church’s House of Bishops is one of the largest in the Anglican Communion. (Nigeria’s is probably larger.) Anyway, he described the size of The Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops as “a good thing.”

Of course, I was especially interested in what Archbishop Isingoma thought of the Anglican Covenant and how his church might respond to it. I learned that the Congo dioceses are in the process of studying the covenant, a process that is going on in The Episcopal Church, the Church of England, and, presumably, in other Anglican churches as well. The House of Bishops will discuss the Covenant in June, the archbishop explained, and the Provincial Synod will take up the matter near the end of 2011.

When pressed about his own view of the Covenant, Archbishop Insingoma responded in much the same way as did Katharine Jefferts Schori when asked about the prospects for Covenant adoption. (See ENS story here.) He suggested that the process that got the Communion to where it is now is actually more important than the Covenant itself. Some are satisfied with changing slowly, but others, he asserted, have been in a hurry and have wanted to end discussion quickly. He described the issues being dealt with by the Communion as “complicated,” and he is clearly pleased that there is a lot of listening going on.

Following the lead of our own presiding bishop, Isingoma ducked the question of what he though the Provincial Synod would do. (“That’s why he’s an archbishop,” Dr. Lewis suggested.) Isingoma did, however, say that his church is concerned, that its identity is very much tied to the Anglican Communion, and that he, personally, loves the Communion. He wants to continue in communion with The Episcopal Church and with the Anglican Communion.

______________

It is interesting that many bishops are expressing satisfaction with the discussion and deepening relationships that have seemingly been encouraged by the Windsor Process and development of the Covenant. (I am reminded again of Bishop John Saxbee’s remarks in the Church of England’s General Synod about favoring the process—as long as it never ends.) One can only be encouraged by this. Perhaps our churches were scared into talking with one another. (Of course, some primates continue to turn blue from holding their breath until everyone else agrees with them.)

Wouldn’t it have made more sense to encourage discussion among Communion churches before concluding that a covenant was “the only way forward.” Perhaps we would have discovered another, and assuredly better, way forward.

N.B. When I first posted this piece, my paragraph breaks were somehow lost, decreasing readability. I apologize for the problem and have now restored the originally intended formatting.

Stepping Back and Viewing the Forest

A good preacher can offer surprising insights and make them sound completely obvious. This thought occurred to me while reading Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori’s recent book The Heartbeat of God: Finding the Sacred in the Middle of Everything. In a chapter titled “Opening Doors to Women,” she comments on the current struggle to allow women bishops in the Church of England. In this passage, she illustrates just how ridiculous the whole dispute really is:

The English queen may wear a different kind of hat than a bishop’s miter, but it is the hat of respected and authorized leadership. An Englishman remarked to me recently that he thought the difficulty with female bishops in Britain was that British men didn’t want to be under the authority of women. Well, in England they have accepted the leadership of Elizabeth II—one of her many titles is “Defender of the Faith”—for more than fifty years.

Short and Sweet

As I’m sure many readers already know, Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Court last week rejected Archbishop Robert Duncan’s request for a rehearing of his appeal from the decision of the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas that awarded diocesan assets to the Episcopal Church diocese. The diocese announced the March 29, 2010, order of the court on its Web site yesterday. No announcement has yet appeared on the Web site of the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. (I do hope that the April 1 announcement, three days after the order was issued, was not taken by anyone as an April Fools’ Day prank.)

The Commonwealth Court decision should surprise no one, though Duncan held out hope to his increasingly anxious parishes that the court would be sympathetic. (See “More on the Petition for a Rehearing.”) The body of the court order denying the petition consists of a single sentence: “NOW, March 29, 2011, having considered appellants’ application for reargument before the Court en banc [i.e., before the full court] and appellees’ answer, the application is denied.” I find it amusing that the title of the litigation takes up approximately a page and a half, whereas the body of the order consumes only about a third of a page (see images of the two-page document below).

What Part of Speech Is That?

The baseball season has begun, and I have been watching the first two games played by the Pittsburgh Pirates on the television. The Pirates won yesterday but fell to the Cubs today.

I was surprised yesterday when I discovered the telecast branded as coming from Root Sports, rather than FSN Pittsburgh, last year’s network. A little Internet research led to the conclusion that only the name had been changed, though ownership of the sports network had been transferred somewhere along the line. (See, for example, this post on a Pittsburgh Post-Gazette blog.)

It was not intuitively obvious what the significance of “Root” was, and the press release from the Root Sports Facebook page proved something of a red herring:

“The unique distinction of each of the three regional sports networks [including the former FSN Pittsburgh] is that they can speak with the voice of the fan from a local, insider perspective and provide the opportunity to be part of something bigger,” said Geoff Walker, Vice President of Marketing for DIRECTV Sports Networks. “This approach creates an authentic product that is rooted and connected in the community, invested in its people and committed to providing the highest quality shared experience for its teams and their fans. This is the personality and attitude of ROOT Sports.”

Did the name of the re-branded network somehow come from the idea of being “rooted and connected in the community”? That seemed a stretch, and my assumption that “Root” was a noun left me without a good theory of what the name was supposed to mean.

Near the end of today’s game, however, the network ran a spot that seemed to clear up the matter. “Root,” apparently, is a verb, as in “root, root, root for the home team.” Who knew? The name is reasonable, I suppose, but I question whether Root Sports is such a great name if it takes so long to realize that it isn’t nonsensical.

No doubt, the long-suffering Pittsburgh Pirate fans will get used to it.