Although there have been many reasons advanced for scrapping the Covenant, reasons that have been carefully laid out and fully explored, arguments for the Covenant seem to rely on the notion that no one can think of anything else—the Covenant is the only way forward we are told—or on what can only be called naïve hopefulness.I have even offered a prize. The person offering the best entry gets to say anything relevant and civil on the Coalition’s blog that he or she wants to say for one day. The winner could, of course, argue for or against the Covenant. Entries are to be made as comments to the blog post.
July 15, 2011
Arguments for the Covenant
I’ve just offered a challenge on Comprehensive Unity: The No Anglican Covenant Blog. In my post “Where are the best arguments for the Anglican Covenant?” I ask readers to identify the best arguments in favor of the Covenant and the essays where those arguments are advanced most effectively. As I explained in my post, solid arguments for the Covenant seem few and far between:
July 14, 2011
Gay Rights Worldwide
The campaign for gay rights in the United States is certainly an important struggle for social justice. Most people know, however, that LGBT folks are better off in the U.S. than in most countries, though perhaps they are not treated quite so well as in some European nations.
What many people do not appreciate is just how badly gays are treated in some places, particularly in Africa. Sunday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette carried an enlightening essay on this topic by Jonathan Zimmerman, professor of history and education at New York University. Writing from Ghana, Zimmerman said, in part,
What many people do not appreciate is just how badly gays are treated in some places, particularly in Africa. Sunday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette carried an enlightening essay on this topic by Jonathan Zimmerman, professor of history and education at New York University. Writing from Ghana, Zimmerman said, in part,
Consider that 76 countries ban homosexuality, and half are located here in Africa. Kenya makes gay sex punishable by five to 14 years in jail. It carries a penalty of 10 years in Zimbabwe, where dictator Robert Mugabe has accused “gay gangsters” from the West of conspiring against his regime. The parliament of Uganda is still considering legislation that would impose the death penalty on anyone convicted of having gay sex, despite an international outcry.You can read Zimmerman’s complete report, “Where gay people are not allowed to exist,” on the newspaper’s Web site here.
July 13, 2011
More Aphorisms
Beware of trying to do good things with bad people.
Do not encourage masochists to apply the Golden Rule.The first assertion was inspired by the country’s experience in Afghanistan.
July 12, 2011
Clarifying the Rules
The recent rather tepid response from Lambeth Palace to the advent of the Anglican Mission in England (AMiE) led me to new insights about the Anglican Covenant. The July 5, 2011, statement includes the following:
What does all this have to do with the Anglican Covenant? Consider the origin of the pact. It was not the case that the Anglican Communion was getting on swimmingly and its member churches thought that tighter integration would yield an even more effective and happy global body. Well, not exactly. Instead, many churches believed that other churches were acting badly by not obeying what they took to be the implicit rules of Communion behavior.
The Anglican Diocese of New Westminster was well aware of Resolution I.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference when it promulgated a liturgy for blessing same-sex unions. So was The Episcopal Church when it agreed to consecrate Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Likewise, the churches of the Southern Cone, Rwanda, et alia, understood the longstanding convention against bishops’ exercising jurisdiction over churches in the diocese of another bishop. In each case, a church acted contrary to convention because it believed that was the right thing to do.
The Covenant comes up for adoption, then, in the context of Anglican churches acting “badly” but believing themselves justified in doing so. Our churches don’t need the Covenant to tell them what the expectations of other churches are; those are known quite well. (Curiously, the Covenant is actually silent on the very issues that created a “crisis” in the first place.) If those expectations were ignored in the past, why do we think they will not be ignored under the Covenant?
The Covenant attempts to enshrine “shared discernment” as the ultimate arbiter of Anglican doctrine. This procedure is intended to assure that no church moves
forward until they all do. The process will be dominated by Asian and, especially, African, churches that will effectively wield a veto over any departure from “orthodoxy” and will, thereby, govern the Communion. (We all know how good Africans have proven to be at self-government!) The three-legged stool of Anglicanism will, under the Covenant, become a wobbly, four-legged bar stool, as Scripture, tradition, and reason are joined by the collective wisdom of the Standing Committee as Anglican authorities. Good Lord, preserve us!
We must face reality. Adopting the Covenant will not make disagreements go away and make all Communion churches think alike. Our churches are more different than anyone seems to want to admit. A happy Communion can only be bound together by tolerance. For Western churches to adopt the Covenant with any sincerity would be to abandon their beliefs and to agree to be governed by Third World churches in environments quite unlike that of the West. The resulting Communion would be bound together by intimidation, hatred, and self-loathing. Of course, that could not—would not—last long.
The Archbishop of Canterbury has had the opportunity to speak with the Archbishop of Kenya about the situation: the good faith and fraternal good intentions of our Kenyan colleagues are not at all in question, but it seems that there were misunderstandings of the precise requirements of English Canon Law and good practice as regards the recommendation of candidates for ordination and deployment in mission.Of course, this is polite Anglicanspeak. The “good faith and fraternal good intentions" of the Kenyans are most certainly being called into question. The Archbishop of Kenya and his allies probably know English Canon Law better than the Archbishop of Canterbury does. They have carefully calculated not only what is or is not permitted but also what they can have a reasonable expectation of getting away with. From the AMiE perspective, so far so good.
What does all this have to do with the Anglican Covenant? Consider the origin of the pact. It was not the case that the Anglican Communion was getting on swimmingly and its member churches thought that tighter integration would yield an even more effective and happy global body. Well, not exactly. Instead, many churches believed that other churches were acting badly by not obeying what they took to be the implicit rules of Communion behavior.
The Anglican Diocese of New Westminster was well aware of Resolution I.10 from the 1998 Lambeth Conference when it promulgated a liturgy for blessing same-sex unions. So was The Episcopal Church when it agreed to consecrate Gene Robinson as Bishop of New Hampshire. Likewise, the churches of the Southern Cone, Rwanda, et alia, understood the longstanding convention against bishops’ exercising jurisdiction over churches in the diocese of another bishop. In each case, a church acted contrary to convention because it believed that was the right thing to do.
The Covenant comes up for adoption, then, in the context of Anglican churches acting “badly” but believing themselves justified in doing so. Our churches don’t need the Covenant to tell them what the expectations of other churches are; those are known quite well. (Curiously, the Covenant is actually silent on the very issues that created a “crisis” in the first place.) If those expectations were ignored in the past, why do we think they will not be ignored under the Covenant?
The Covenant attempts to enshrine “shared discernment” as the ultimate arbiter of Anglican doctrine. This procedure is intended to assure that no church moves
forward until they all do. The process will be dominated by Asian and, especially, African, churches that will effectively wield a veto over any departure from “orthodoxy” and will, thereby, govern the Communion. (We all know how good Africans have proven to be at self-government!) The three-legged stool of Anglicanism will, under the Covenant, become a wobbly, four-legged bar stool, as Scripture, tradition, and reason are joined by the collective wisdom of the Standing Committee as Anglican authorities. Good Lord, preserve us!We must face reality. Adopting the Covenant will not make disagreements go away and make all Communion churches think alike. Our churches are more different than anyone seems to want to admit. A happy Communion can only be bound together by tolerance. For Western churches to adopt the Covenant with any sincerity would be to abandon their beliefs and to agree to be governed by Third World churches in environments quite unlike that of the West. The resulting Communion would be bound together by intimidation, hatred, and self-loathing. Of course, that could not—would not—last long.
Get your No Anglican Covenant merchandise at the Farrago Gift Shop. Beat the price increases. Order before July 21, 2011.
July 11, 2011
Buy Merchandise before Price Increase
As you may know, the price of cotton has been rising. This is, I assume, the primary reason that Café Press is raising prices on clothing items, effective July 21, 2011. This means that many prices will be increasing at my Farrago Gift Shop. If you are considering buying apparel carrying either my No Anglican Covenant logo or curve-stitch isometric cube design, now is the time to order to avoid higher prices.
July 7, 2011
Groupthink and Courage
My friend Jim Beyer has just published a guest post on MadPriest’s blog. It is titled “Groupthink and Courage.” Jim offers an explanation for why so many are willing to support the Anglican Covenant, even though its adoption is clearly a demented idea. Here is a sample paragraph:
Groupthink mentality is very hard to escape. [Bill] Moyers is a powerful intellect, and even he was not able to do so for quite a while. So the persistence of other group, the Lambeth staff, English House of Bishops, and the lay leadership that continues to promote the Covenant, is hardly surprising. We hear that there are members who know the Covenant is a multi-dimensional failure. They know it won’t be universally adopted and will not therefore bring the Communion together, let alone keep it together. The covenanted Church will become hugely litigious. But they do not speak up; they do not resign. They stay in the inner circle. It is safer there. The group thinks well of them.Jim is on to something here. As a bonus for reading Jim’s essay, MadPriest offers a bitterly funny cartoon.
Get your No Anglican Covenant merchandise at the Farrago Gift Shop.
The Debt Ceiling Crisis
Jim Wallis posted an essay today called “The Debt Ceiling Play: My ‘CliffsNotes’ Version” on his God’s Politics blog. It is hardly the definitive word on the ridiculous drama playing out in Washington, D.C., but Wallis does offer some notable lines. For example, he offers this characterization of the conflict:
It is a conflict between those who believe in the common good and those who believe individual good is the only good. While a biblical worldview informs Christians that they should be wary of the rich and defend the poor, a competing ideology says that wealth is equivalent to righteousness and God’s blessing.My favorite line is this one:
Not raising the federal debt limit isn’t like cutting up your credit card. It’s like cutting up your credit card bill.You can read what Wallis has to say here.
____________
Like most Americans, apparently, I am frustrated with President Obama. My complaint is not that he is too “liberal,” but that he is too nice. He persists in believing that Republicans actually care about ordinary people, that they are willing to negotiate in good faith, and that they have some clue as to how to control the Tea Party and prevent its crazies from destroying the Republican Party and the country along with it.
In the present circumstances, I am frustrated that Obama has bought into the notion that immediate reduction of the federal deficit is more important than devising a plan for rescuing our anemic economy and making it possible for the economy eventually to support the level of government needed in a complex and (one hopes) humane society.
So, what should the President do? He should declare that the debt ceiling is a mythical construct, that Congress’s authorizing spending obliges the Executive Branch to finance that spending, and that to fail to pay the country’s debt is unconstitutional. The basis for this is Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
Like most Americans, apparently, I am frustrated with President Obama. My complaint is not that he is too “liberal,” but that he is too nice. He persists in believing that Republicans actually care about ordinary people, that they are willing to negotiate in good faith, and that they have some clue as to how to control the Tea Party and prevent its crazies from destroying the Republican Party and the country along with it.
In the present circumstances, I am frustrated that Obama has bought into the notion that immediate reduction of the federal deficit is more important than devising a plan for rescuing our anemic economy and making it possible for the economy eventually to support the level of government needed in a complex and (one hopes) humane society.
So, what should the President do? He should declare that the debt ceiling is a mythical construct, that Congress’s authorizing spending obliges the Executive Branch to finance that spending, and that to fail to pay the country’s debt is unconstitutional. The basis for this is Section 4 of the Fourteenth Amendment:
The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.He should then tell Congress to turn its attention to something important, such as figuring out how to create more jobs. Certainly, threatening to default on government obligations is not a strategy likely to encourage investment and job creation! If the Republicans are unhappy with the President’s new-found cojones, they can sue. They won’t win, but the country will.
July 6, 2011
No Anglican Covenant Coalition Names Episcopal Patrons
A surprisingly small numbers of “ordinary” bishops have had much to say publicly about the Anglican Covenant that churches are being asked to adopt. There are exceptions, of course—the Archbishop of Canterbury is the head cheerleader for the pact, and some of the GAFCON primates have derided it as too little too late—but, for a document that promises to remake the Anglican Communion and redefine Anglicanism itself, it is odd that bishops are not falling over one another to assure that their voices will be heard on the matter. This is especially remarkable in the U.S. and Canada, the churches of which are expected to make a decision about the Covenant (or, perhaps, defer a decision) in their forthcoming meetings. It is perhaps less notable in the Church of England, where there seems to be inordinate deference paid to the Archbishop of Canterbury, leading to a reluctance to oppose his views in public.
In a welcome development, however, two English bishop, albeit retired ones, have chosen to make their opposition to the covenant more prominent. Bishops John Saxbee and Peter Selby have just been designated as Episcopal Patrons of the No Anglican Coalition.
Here are statements from them from the Coalition’s press release, first from Bishop Saxbee:
You can read the whole statement from the No Anglican Covenant Coalition here.
In a welcome development, however, two English bishop, albeit retired ones, have chosen to make their opposition to the covenant more prominent. Bishops John Saxbee and Peter Selby have just been designated as Episcopal Patrons of the No Anglican Coalition.
Here are statements from them from the Coalition’s press release, first from Bishop Saxbee:
The Anglican Communion doesn’t need a Covenant because Anglicanism is a Covenant, predicated on grace and goodwill. If there is grace and goodwill, a Covenant is unnecessary. If there is no grace or goodwill, a Covenant will be unavailing.From Bishop Selby, we have this:
This proposed Covenant is not the solution to the tensions in the Anglican Communion. It will inevitably create a litigious Communion where every serious disagreement will become a possible occasion to seek a province’s exclusion.Perhaps the boldness of Bishops Saxbee and Selby will encourage more bishops to speak out against the ill-conceived Covenant.
You can read the whole statement from the No Anglican Covenant Coalition here.
Get your No Anglican Covenant merchandise at the Farrago Gift Shop.
July 5, 2011
New Aphorism
Lionel Deimel’s Farrago includes a page of original aphorisms. I added a new entry today, and I think it is one of my better ones:
You can read all my aphorisms here.
The fastest way to gain the coöperation of your colleagues is to do all the work yourself.Unlike some of my pearls of wisdom, this one is not so much the product of philosophical musings as of actual experience.
You can read all my aphorisms here.
Alvarez Grounded
The Pittsburgh Pirates’ third baseman Pedro Alvarez has been away from the team while trying to come back from a recent injury. I was reading about him in Sunday’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. The leading story in the Sports section was “Pirates’ Alvarez finally healthy; bat not there yet” by Michael Sanserino. Unfortunately, I never got past the second paragraph:
As it turns out, however, Mr. Sanserio crammed a great number of errors into one sentence. (Does the Post-Gazette employ editors?) For one thing, Alverez is a third baseman, not a third basemen! Finally, “who” should actually be “whom.”
When I get around to it, I may read the rest of the story.
Facing professional adversity, the injured Pirates third basemen credited his wife, Keli, who he married in the winter, for keeping him grounded.My initial interest in this sentence—the paragraph is only one sentence long—focused on the word “grounded.” Did Keli Alverez keep the ballplayer mentally healthy, or did she keep him from going back to work, possibly against his will? “Grounded” is insufficiently clear.
As it turns out, however, Mr. Sanserio crammed a great number of errors into one sentence. (Does the Post-Gazette employ editors?) For one thing, Alverez is a third baseman, not a third basemen! Finally, “who” should actually be “whom.”
When I get around to it, I may read the rest of the story.
July 3, 2011
St. James’ Episcopal Church Returns
As I explained in “Third Congregation Settles with Episcopal Diocese,” St. James’, Penn Hills, is beginning the next phase of its life as an Episcopal parish. Representatives of the “Anglican” congregation turned over the keys to the building last week, and the first Episcopal service at the church in several years was scheduled for today at 9 AM.
Suppressing guilt for abandoning my own parish’s choir on the Fourth of July weekend, I decided to attend church at St. James’ this morning. I knew that an old mailing list had been used to contact those who had attended St. James’ before the October 2008 split in the diocese, but it
seemed unlikely that many people would show up for the service. I thought that some people needed to attend to show the flag, so I put on my “The Episcopal Church Welcomes All” button and headed off on the half hour trip to Penn Hills.
I had not been to St. James’ in years, and I had never been inside the actual worship space. In fact, I remembered little about the church and feared a rather dreary service with a tiny congregation and no music.
Like many Episcopal churches in Pittsburgh, St. James’ is not visible from any major road. The entrance to it is on a busy thoroughfare, however, so the church does have something of a visible presence in the neighborhood. As of today, however, the sign on Frankstown Road does not include the word “Episcopal” and fails to indicate the service time. (For this and other photos, click on the photo for a larger view.)
The church is on a hill and is hidden by shrubbery and buildings. I drove up the hill and parked in the parking lot. I got out of the car and proceeded to the church.
I was hardly in the door when Gwen Santiago, wife of Priest-Developer Vicente Santiago ran up to me and gave me a hug. I had not announced that I was coming.
Gwen and Vicente (see picture at left) were at St. James’ for much of Saturday, cleaning and organizing the church for today’s service. When I arrived, the place looked pretty much like any other Episcopal Church. Construction on the building began in 1955, when the parish was already more than a century old. The building is decidedly modern and neither lavish nor spartan. I was surprised (and delighted) to see that we would have an organist for today. There was a minimalist service leaflet, which I suspect was composed and duplicated Saturday night. I was happy to see an Episcopal Church flag in evidence, though it was wrinkled and faded. Apparently, it had been in storage for a few years.
Vicente was celebrant and preacher, and Gwen performed all the other duties, except for reading the lessons and leading Prayers of the People. For these, she recruited volunteers. I read one of Paul’s tongue-twister passages from Romans, which was difficult without preparation. (Sample: For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.) Music was largely patriotic, which was fine with me for a July 3 Sunday. We sang, among other things, “My country, ’tis of thee” (#717), “God of our fathers” (#718), and “O beautiful for spacious skies” (#719). The service ran relatively smoothly under the circumstances, and I felt very glad to be a part of it.
The congregation numbered about 10, and included no one from the recently relocated congregation. Some people were there for the same reason I was, but there were others. For example, I met a former senior warden and his wife who had left St. James’ before the congregation decided to follow Bob Duncan out of The Episcopal Church. They have not been attending church at all, but they seemed ready to return to their former parish.
I was talking to the organist after the service when a woman walked in asking the time of the service. The newspaper article she read did not give a service time, and she was surprised to learn the service was over. We made her feel welcome, however, and invited her to have refreshments with the rest of us. As it happens, she is a Roman Catholic living in Penn Hills and looking for a more welcoming place to worship than she experienced in her own church. I think she left a recipient of warm hospitality and a few mini-lectures on The Episcopal Church. I suspect she will be back.
Gwen gave me a tour of the buildings and grounds, both of which are surprisingly spacious, and we talked about ideas for developing the parish. Along with others, I also talked to Vicente about plans for St. James’ and about its history, of which I had known little. (I had even been a bit uncertain about just where Penn Hills was.)
All in all, my visit to St. James’, Penn Hills, was an uplifting experience. Rebuilding a parish that has undergone so much trauma will be difficult, but it can be exciting as well. Vicente and Gwen seem determined to make it work. God willing, St. James’ Episcopal Church will once again become a major parish of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
Suppressing guilt for abandoning my own parish’s choir on the Fourth of July weekend, I decided to attend church at St. James’ this morning. I knew that an old mailing list had been used to contact those who had attended St. James’ before the October 2008 split in the diocese, but it
seemed unlikely that many people would show up for the service. I thought that some people needed to attend to show the flag, so I put on my “The Episcopal Church Welcomes All” button and headed off on the half hour trip to Penn Hills.I had not been to St. James’ in years, and I had never been inside the actual worship space. In fact, I remembered little about the church and feared a rather dreary service with a tiny congregation and no music.
Like many Episcopal churches in Pittsburgh, St. James’ is not visible from any major road. The entrance to it is on a busy thoroughfare, however, so the church does have something of a visible presence in the neighborhood. As of today, however, the sign on Frankstown Road does not include the word “Episcopal” and fails to indicate the service time. (For this and other photos, click on the photo for a larger view.)
The church is on a hill and is hidden by shrubbery and buildings. I drove up the hill and parked in the parking lot. I got out of the car and proceeded to the church.
I was hardly in the door when Gwen Santiago, wife of Priest-Developer Vicente Santiago ran up to me and gave me a hug. I had not announced that I was coming.
Gwen and Vicente (see picture at left) were at St. James’ for much of Saturday, cleaning and organizing the church for today’s service. When I arrived, the place looked pretty much like any other Episcopal Church. Construction on the building began in 1955, when the parish was already more than a century old. The building is decidedly modern and neither lavish nor spartan. I was surprised (and delighted) to see that we would have an organist for today. There was a minimalist service leaflet, which I suspect was composed and duplicated Saturday night. I was happy to see an Episcopal Church flag in evidence, though it was wrinkled and faded. Apparently, it had been in storage for a few years.
Vicente was celebrant and preacher, and Gwen performed all the other duties, except for reading the lessons and leading Prayers of the People. For these, she recruited volunteers. I read one of Paul’s tongue-twister passages from Romans, which was difficult without preparation. (Sample: For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. Now if I do what I do not want, I agree that the law is good. But in fact it is no longer I that do it, but sin that dwells within me.) Music was largely patriotic, which was fine with me for a July 3 Sunday. We sang, among other things, “My country, ’tis of thee” (#717), “God of our fathers” (#718), and “O beautiful for spacious skies” (#719). The service ran relatively smoothly under the circumstances, and I felt very glad to be a part of it.The congregation numbered about 10, and included no one from the recently relocated congregation. Some people were there for the same reason I was, but there were others. For example, I met a former senior warden and his wife who had left St. James’ before the congregation decided to follow Bob Duncan out of The Episcopal Church. They have not been attending church at all, but they seemed ready to return to their former parish.
I was talking to the organist after the service when a woman walked in asking the time of the service. The newspaper article she read did not give a service time, and she was surprised to learn the service was over. We made her feel welcome, however, and invited her to have refreshments with the rest of us. As it happens, she is a Roman Catholic living in Penn Hills and looking for a more welcoming place to worship than she experienced in her own church. I think she left a recipient of warm hospitality and a few mini-lectures on The Episcopal Church. I suspect she will be back.
Gwen gave me a tour of the buildings and grounds, both of which are surprisingly spacious, and we talked about ideas for developing the parish. Along with others, I also talked to Vicente about plans for St. James’ and about its history, of which I had known little. (I had even been a bit uncertain about just where Penn Hills was.)
All in all, my visit to St. James’, Penn Hills, was an uplifting experience. Rebuilding a parish that has undergone so much trauma will be difficult, but it can be exciting as well. Vicente and Gwen seem determined to make it work. God willing, St. James’ Episcopal Church will once again become a major parish of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh.
June 30, 2011
New WDUQ Schedule
Tomorrow, Essential Public Media takes over the management of WDUQ-FM. On July 1, 2011, most jazz disappears from 90.5 FM. (Until the FCC actually approves the sale of the station by Duquesne University, the station call letters will remain WDUQ, but they will be mentioned as little as possible and will eventually change.) The new schedule is now available.Given that the new schedule is mostly one of news and information, it looks promising. Nearly all the programs that have been airing on WDUQ show up in the new schedule, though programs have been moved around a bit. Commonwealth Club, for example, has been moved from 6 AM Saturday to 6 AM Sunday. Too bad it will not be broadcast at a more civil hour. A repeat of Fresh Air at 10 PM weeknights is a welcome addition; not everyone can listen at 3 PM.
I have two serious disappointments. The quirky but fascinating Radiolab has not been picked up, nor has Riverwalk, Live from the Landing. I was hoping to see the latter, though, as a jazz program—one both entertaining and educational—I didn’t really expect it to make the cut. On the other hand, I was just as happy not to see The Diane Rehm Show in the lineup. Sad to say, Diane Rehm has become very hard to listen to.
I am, of course, pleased to see Rhythm Sweet and Hot with my friend Mike Plaskett and sidekick Dale Abraham in the schedule, even if the program keeps moving earlier and earlier on Saturday night. (A few years ago, I used to be able to listen to the end of the program after I went to bed.)
Finally, although I find Indian music about as hard to listen to as whatever it is they play on WYEP, I think it was a good decision to retain Music from India. If jazz is hard to find on the radio, Indian music is nearly nonexistent.
Update, 7/1/2011: The Web site for the revamped station can be found at http://www.essentialpublicradio.org/.
Third Congregation Settles with Episcopal Diocese
Yesterday’s e-mail newsletter from the Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh carried the story that the congregation of St. James, Penn Hills, was leaving its Frankstown Road building and would begin using space at nearby Faith Community Church. The headline “St. James Church Makes Historic Move” made this sound like a wonderful development. A few paragraphs down, however, it became apparent that the move was not completely voluntary: “Written statements by the local Episcopal Church diocese of Pittsburgh expressing its expectations led us to believe that it was time to move on.”
In fact, St. James, Penn Hills, becomes the third congregation in Bob Duncan’s Pittsburgh diocese to settle with the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and the first to vacate its building voluntarily. Since the Board of Trustees of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh holds title to the building, the congregation was not in a good negotiating position.
A story in today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette offers a more balanced view of what is happening in Penn Hills. (The Web site of the Episcopal Diocese has not yet run a story on this topic.) The Ann Rodgers story begins
The departing congregation will begin worshiping in its new quarters this Sunday. The Frankstown Road building will also see worship Sunday, as the Rev. Vicente Santiago will lead an Episcopal service for whoever shows up. The hope is that an Episcopal Church congregation can be re-established in Penn Hills.
On April 22, 2008, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, under Bob Duncan, published “Frequently Asked Questions about Realignment.” One of the questions dealt with was what the immediate effects would be on parishes. This was answered as followed:
In fact, St. James, Penn Hills, becomes the third congregation in Bob Duncan’s Pittsburgh diocese to settle with the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh and the first to vacate its building voluntarily. Since the Board of Trustees of the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh holds title to the building, the congregation was not in a good negotiating position.
A story in today’s Pittsburgh Post-Gazette offers a more balanced view of what is happening in Penn Hills. (The Web site of the Episcopal Diocese has not yet run a story on this topic.) The Ann Rodgers story begins
Members of an Anglican parish in Penn Hills have quietly handed over their building to the rival Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, saying they couldn't accept the ground rules for property negotiation and believed it was better to rent space in a different church nearby.The story quotes St. James’ priest, the Rev. Doug Sherman, as explaining that the claims of the Dennis Canon and the insistence that “the value of all property and assets of the parish must be considered” meant that the congregation simply could not afford to stay in the building. In any case, the Episcopal diocese did not ask the congregation to leave.
The departing congregation will begin worshiping in its new quarters this Sunday. The Frankstown Road building will also see worship Sunday, as the Rev. Vicente Santiago will lead an Episcopal service for whoever shows up. The hope is that an Episcopal Church congregation can be re-established in Penn Hills.
On April 22, 2008, the Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh, under Bob Duncan, published “Frequently Asked Questions about Realignment.” One of the questions dealt with was what the immediate effects would be on parishes. This was answered as followed:
There would be few immediate consequences for parishes. No property would immediately change hands. Expected lawsuits would largely target the Diocese.All this was true. For the congregation of St. James, Penn Hills, however, such reassurances may seem less comforting now than they did three years ago.
June 27, 2011
Analysis of the Report from the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons
It is good that the Executive Council of The Episcopal Church reversed its previous position and released the February 15, 2011, report from the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons (SCCC). That untitled report was characterized in an Episcopal News Service story as “outlining the changes that would be needed if the General Convention decided to sign on to the covenant.(See “Report Released.”)
Now that the report has been made public, those calling for its release have enjoyed their victory, and Executive Council has celebrated its new-found transparency, it is incumbent on those who wanted to see the SCCC report to try to make sense of it. In what follows, I will try to do just that.
One cannot read the SCCC report without being struck by its reluctance to make categorical statements. The word “may” (as in “this may be seen” or “it may be of concern”) occurs frequently in the report, suggesting either that not everyone on the SCCC could agree on the implications of certain provisions of the Covenant or that the Covenant is so vague that a definitive interpretation is simply impossible.
The SCCC report refrains from offering value judgements. For example, the report declares that
The main message of the report is that the commitments embedded in the Covenant would compromise the autonomy of The Episcopal Church and would require substantial changes to the church’s constitution and canons in order to assure that those commitments could be kept. Like the Canadian report, however, the Episcopal Church report does not suggest specific changes to accommodate Covenant acceptance.
Because the report refers to provisions in the Covenant without quoting them in full, it is helpful to have a copy of the Covenant at hand when reading the SCCC report.
Provisions of the Introduction and Preamble; Potential Concerns for Constitutional Autonomy. Given that the SCCC was asked to evaluate the implications of Section 4 of the Covenant, it is surprising that the first section of substance in its report concerns the Preamble and the Introduction to the Anglican Covenant. In the previous section, the SCCC makes this statement:
The report accuses the framers of the Covenant of conflating communion in Jesus Christ with communion among Anglican Communion churches:
The last paragraph in this section concerns the Covenant’s Preamble. There is a typographical error in this paragraph; there should be a closing double quotation mark at the end of the first sentence. The SCCC points out here the tension inherent between pursuing mission “in our different contexts” while we “maintain the unity of the Spirit.” This, of course, is the essence of what the Covenant is about, namely, changing the current balance between provincial autonomy and enforced uniformity in favor of the latter.
Not surprisingly, given the charge to the SCCC, Particular Issues in Section 4 is the longest section of the report. It begins with a rather tedious paragraph about the differing opinions held in the Communion about the status of the Windsor Report and the relative importance of its recommendations. The Commission should have simply declared the obvious—the Windsor Report is merely an un-adopted report with no special authority, and its recommendation of an Anglican Covenant is the only recommendation left that has not failed utterly. Tobias Haller has the right idea here—we should reject explicitly Lambeth I.10 and the Windsor Report as authoritative statements for the Communion. (See “How to Approach the Covenant.”)
The report goes on to point out, albeit in its own tentative, Anglican way, the disingenuousness of the Covenant’s treatment of provincial autonomy:
The report includes this garbled sentence:
Like the Canadian report, the SCCC document finds ambiguity and unfairness (such as the lack of ability to appeal decisions of the Communion) in Section 4. The question (or statement) cited above is answered (or underlined) clearly in this sentence:
The next section of the SCCC report is The Constitution and Canons of TEC, which, as noted earlier, does not address church canons at all. The Anglican Communion is mentioned only once in the Episcopal Church constitution, and that, as the report observes, is in the Preamble. That mention neither restricts the operation of the church nor grants any power over the church to the Anglican Communion. (See my post “A Preamble Proposal” from a year ago.)
After dispensing with the somewhat meaningless reference to the Anglican Communion in the Preamble, the SCCC cites five articles of the constitution that do not, but, under the Covenant, presumably should, include some provision for allowing Communion influence over decision making within The Episcopal Church: Articles V, VIII, IX, X, and XII. Article X, for example, treats the Book of Common Prayer and revisions thereof. Clearly, prayer book revision could run afoul of decisions made by the Anglican Communion as a body or could place the church in a position where another Anglican church could “raise a question” about a prayer book change. (Imagine a change to the marriage liturgy that allows for both principals to be of the same sex, for example.) The report neither explains the logic behind the need to change these articles nor suggests how they might be changed to accommodate compliance with the Covenant. That the Commission believes that nearly half of the articles in our most basic governing document would need to be modified should the church adopt the Covenant should give General Convention deputies pause, however.
The final section of the report—interestingly, the report includes no section of conclusions—is titled Applicable Canonical Provisions. As it happens, the Anglican Communion or other Anglican bodies are seldom mentioned in our canons. What mentions there are involve designating representatives to Anglican bodies (for example, to the Anglican Consultative Council in Canon 4.2 of Title I), territorial issues (for example, Canon 11.4 of Title I on non-overlapping episcopal jurisdictions), and competence of clergy coming from other churches (Canon 10.3 of Title III regarding examining candidates’ knowledge of things Anglican).
This section takes note of nearly every Anglican reference in our canons, though it misses the reference to the Standing Commission on Anglican and International Peace with Justice Concerns in Canon 1.2 of Title I and the aforementioned Anglican references of Title III’s Canon 10.3.
In the 13 paragraphs of the report, the SCCC mostly highlights parts of canons lacking any provision for consent or approval by the Communion. These observations are not justified in the report, and no means to “correct” them are proposed. For example, the report notes
Of course, this raises the question about the meaning of communion, impaired communion, and so forth. These are issues that require additional examination. Although The Episcopal Church has not declared that it is not in communion with any other Anglican church, the analogous claim cannot be made of other church relative to ours. What do our canons mean when “some Church in communion with this Church” refers to a church of the Communion that claims not to be in communion with us? How do things work if we do not adopt the Covenant or if we adopt it and are sanctioned by “relational consequences”?
It seems unnecessary to remark on all the canons that the SCCC believes might need to be modified, though I do want to say something about Canon 2.4 of Title I regarding the role of the Presiding Bishop. About this, the report says the following:
There are other related topics not treated in the SCCC report. One could argue that these topics were beyond its charge, but they do need to be considered.
What effect would Covenant adoption have on property litigation? The church has been able to argue that The Episcopal Church is beholden to no authority above the General Convention and that pronouncements from the Anglican Communion have no relevance to property litigation. Under the Covenant, it is not clear that we can continue to assert that position, particularly given the authority some attribute to the Windsor Report.
The SCCC report does not suggest what the consequences might be of rejecting the Covenant. The Canadian report opined that the consequences would be few and minor. If that is so, one could argue that, given the consequence of Covenant adoption, the conservative path would be to reject the Covenant outright. (This is certainly my preference.)
Finally, the report failed to consider facts on the ground that could cause problems for The Episcopal Church as soon as the Covenant is adopted. For example, we now have two active, un-closeted homosexual partnered bishops in the church. Knowing that consecrating such persons is anathema to many, perhaps even most, of the churches in the Communion, would the church need to depose Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool as part of the Covenant-adoption process? I would like to know; they would like to know.
Despite the limitations of the SCCC report, its content only adds to the growing list of reasons not to adopt the Anglican Covenant. The changes the Covenant would effect in The Episcopal Church do not weigh favorably on Covenant adoption.
My view of the Covenant, of course, is well known. Let me simply close by saying that I wore my Integrity button to church yesterday. It well articulates what our church’s position should be going forward.
Now that the report has been made public, those calling for its release have enjoyed their victory, and Executive Council has celebrated its new-found transparency, it is incumbent on those who wanted to see the SCCC report to try to make sense of it. In what follows, I will try to do just that.
General Comments
At the outset, it should be said that the SCCC report does not claim to represent a legal evaluation of the Covenant as a whole. The SCCC states in its opening paragraph, “We have been asked to focus on Section 4 of the draft Covenant.” This stands in contrast to the recently released report prepared for the Anglican Church of Canada, which, although concentrating on Section 4 and its consequences for the Canadian church, deals with other issues as well, such as the imprecision of the terms used in the Covenant. On the other hand, the SCCC suggests, as almost no one else has, that the Introduction, which is declared not to be part of the Covenant, potentially has significant implications.One cannot read the SCCC report without being struck by its reluctance to make categorical statements. The word “may” (as in “this may be seen” or “it may be of concern”) occurs frequently in the report, suggesting either that not everyone on the SCCC could agree on the implications of certain provisions of the Covenant or that the Covenant is so vague that a definitive interpretation is simply impossible.
The SCCC report refrains from offering value judgements. For example, the report declares that
adoption of the current draft Anglican Covenant has the potential to change the constitutional and canonical framework of TEC, particularly with respect to the autonomy of our Church, and the constitutional authority of our General Convention, bishops and dioceses.It does not suggest whether such changes would be a good or a bad thing, though I suspect that the authors of the report anticipated that most Episcopalian readers would be distressed by this conclusion.
The main message of the report is that the commitments embedded in the Covenant would compromise the autonomy of The Episcopal Church and would require substantial changes to the church’s constitution and canons in order to assure that those commitments could be kept. Like the Canadian report, however, the Episcopal Church report does not suggest specific changes to accommodate Covenant acceptance.
Because the report refers to provisions in the Covenant without quoting them in full, it is helpful to have a copy of the Covenant at hand when reading the SCCC report.
The Report in Detail
The report is divided into five sections, which are unnumbered:- Background, which might better have been titled Introduction
- Provisions of the Introduction and Preamble; Potential Concerns for Constitutional Autonomy
- Particular Issues in Section 4
- The Constitution and Canons of TEC, which, in fact, deals only with the church’s constitution
- Applicable Canonical Provisions
Provisions of the Introduction and Preamble; Potential Concerns for Constitutional Autonomy. Given that the SCCC was asked to evaluate the implications of Section 4 of the Covenant, it is surprising that the first section of substance in its report concerns the Preamble and the Introduction to the Anglican Covenant. In the previous section, the SCCC makes this statement:
A close reading of the Covenant, and especially Section 4.4.1, makes it clear that the text of the Preamble and of the Introduction to the Covenant must be considered as part of the Covenant itself, despite some confusing language to the contrary.That “confusing language” that is Section 4.4.1 states
The Covenant consists of the text set out in this document in the Preamble, Sections One to Four and the Declaration. The Introduction to the Covenant Text, which shall always be annexed to the Covenant text, is not part of the Covenant, but shall be accorded authority in understanding the purpose of the Covenant.The recognition that the Introduction might have significant bearing on the meaning of the Covenant is perhaps the greatest contribution of the SCCC to the Covenant debate. That Introduction has received little attention, and what little it has has emphasized its incoherence and dubious theology (See my post “Clatworthy Trashes Covenant Introduction.”)
The report accuses the framers of the Covenant of conflating communion in Jesus Christ with communion among Anglican Communion churches:
The implication may be that the continuation of our communion in Jesus Christ requires accession to the particular ordering of the church described in the draft Covenant, or which may be described from time to time by various elements of the Anglican Communion (e.g., “Instruments of Communion”).The SCCC is too polite to suggest that the confusion in the Introduction is an intentional effort to shame churches into adopting the Covenant, but I will certainly do so. The report suggests that elevating the importance of the Anglican Communion puts its concerns on a higher plane than the governing documents of particular churches. It expresses the concern of the Commission rather delicately in these words:
The thrust of the Covenant, that, under certain circumstances, new expression by a constituent member of its understanding of faith and order may be subject to the judgment (and assent) of other members of the Communion, may challenge the authority of the General Convention, under the provisions of our Constitution and Canons, in identifying and articulating new understandings of our faith and doctrine.Here is one of those occurrences of “may,” meaning, of course, “will, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.”
The last paragraph in this section concerns the Covenant’s Preamble. There is a typographical error in this paragraph; there should be a closing double quotation mark at the end of the first sentence. The SCCC points out here the tension inherent between pursuing mission “in our different contexts” while we “maintain the unity of the Spirit.” This, of course, is the essence of what the Covenant is about, namely, changing the current balance between provincial autonomy and enforced uniformity in favor of the latter.
Not surprisingly, given the charge to the SCCC, Particular Issues in Section 4 is the longest section of the report. It begins with a rather tedious paragraph about the differing opinions held in the Communion about the status of the Windsor Report and the relative importance of its recommendations. The Commission should have simply declared the obvious—the Windsor Report is merely an un-adopted report with no special authority, and its recommendation of an Anglican Covenant is the only recommendation left that has not failed utterly. Tobias Haller has the right idea here—we should reject explicitly Lambeth I.10 and the Windsor Report as authoritative statements for the Communion. (See “How to Approach the Covenant.”)
The report goes on to point out, albeit in its own tentative, Anglican way, the disingenuousness of the Covenant’s treatment of provincial autonomy:
Some may view as contradictory the charge of the Covenant for each covenanting church to take the steps to implement the stated principles and procedures and the Covenant’s claim that it does not intentionally alter “any provision of the Constitution and Canons of any church of the Communion, or to limit its autonomy of governance.”The Covenant, indeed, does not change the polity of any church directly, but adopting the Covenant will necessarily require changes in the governance of The Episcopal Church and, likely, all other churches of the Communion. (“Some,” in the above quotation, means “every literate person with half a brain.”) The report declares
If the adoption of a Covenant creates a limited governance authority in the Instruments, our Constitution would need to be amended to acknowledge accession to that authority.Surely the Covenant does create such an authority, and this is the basis of observations about our constitution and canons that occur later in the report.
The report includes this garbled sentence:
It is necessary, before embracing any Communion-wide structure, to resolve the issue of how being in the Communion itself informs or changes our Church’s ability to receive the doctrine and practice of the Christian faith?I think the question mark in this sentence was intended to be a period. Without analyzing the remainder of this section in detail, it is fair to say that the SCCC sees the Covenent as doing what it explicitly states it is not doing, namely changing the polity of constituent churches and limiting their ability to “innovate.” That, after all, is the purpose of the Covenant, all the Anglican fudge frosting notwithstanding.
Like the Canadian report, the SCCC document finds ambiguity and unfairness (such as the lack of ability to appeal decisions of the Communion) in Section 4. The question (or statement) cited above is answered (or underlined) clearly in this sentence:
Accordingly, the constitutional autonomy of the Episcopal Church in its future articulation of doctrine or practice could be compromised by this provision [Section 4.2.4].This section of the report concludes with this chilling paragraph:
Section 4.2 would require substantial Constitutional and canonical action on the part of the Episcopal Church. It would purport to require the Episcopal Church to put into place “mechanisms, agencies, or institutions,” necessary to assure the compliance with the Covenant of all levels of the Church and respective dioceses. It further implies an expectation that the Constitution and Canons of the Episcopal Church be amended to empower the Presiding Bishop to become the Anglican Communion de facto compliance officer for the Episcopal Church, which would clearly exceed her present constitutional and canonical authority.This realization is the analogy of what was concluded by the Governance Working Group in the Canadian report. Neither The Episcopal Church nor the Anglican Church of Canada is governed exclusively from the top; although their respective polities include central decision-making bodies, authority is dispersed. If each church in the Communion must avoid giving offense to other churches and assure compliance with decisions made by the Communion as a whole, then the behavior of all decision-making units of each church—dioceses, for example—must be tightly constrained. This is a problem for any church not governed in an authoritarian manner; it is a particularly difficult problem for The Episcopal Church.
The next section of the SCCC report is The Constitution and Canons of TEC, which, as noted earlier, does not address church canons at all. The Anglican Communion is mentioned only once in the Episcopal Church constitution, and that, as the report observes, is in the Preamble. That mention neither restricts the operation of the church nor grants any power over the church to the Anglican Communion. (See my post “A Preamble Proposal” from a year ago.)
After dispensing with the somewhat meaningless reference to the Anglican Communion in the Preamble, the SCCC cites five articles of the constitution that do not, but, under the Covenant, presumably should, include some provision for allowing Communion influence over decision making within The Episcopal Church: Articles V, VIII, IX, X, and XII. Article X, for example, treats the Book of Common Prayer and revisions thereof. Clearly, prayer book revision could run afoul of decisions made by the Anglican Communion as a body or could place the church in a position where another Anglican church could “raise a question” about a prayer book change. (Imagine a change to the marriage liturgy that allows for both principals to be of the same sex, for example.) The report neither explains the logic behind the need to change these articles nor suggests how they might be changed to accommodate compliance with the Covenant. That the Commission believes that nearly half of the articles in our most basic governing document would need to be modified should the church adopt the Covenant should give General Convention deputies pause, however.
The final section of the report—interestingly, the report includes no section of conclusions—is titled Applicable Canonical Provisions. As it happens, the Anglican Communion or other Anglican bodies are seldom mentioned in our canons. What mentions there are involve designating representatives to Anglican bodies (for example, to the Anglican Consultative Council in Canon 4.2 of Title I), territorial issues (for example, Canon 11.4 of Title I on non-overlapping episcopal jurisdictions), and competence of clergy coming from other churches (Canon 10.3 of Title III regarding examining candidates’ knowledge of things Anglican).
This section takes note of nearly every Anglican reference in our canons, though it misses the reference to the Standing Commission on Anglican and International Peace with Justice Concerns in Canon 1.2 of Title I and the aforementioned Anglican references of Title III’s Canon 10.3.
In the 13 paragraphs of the report, the SCCC mostly highlights parts of canons lacking any provision for consent or approval by the Communion. These observations are not justified in the report, and no means to “correct” them are proposed. For example, the report notes
Title I, Canons 9.2 and 10, describe the process for approving new dioceses, with no accession to or approval by the Anglican Communion.Some explanation would be helpful here. Our canons generally do not allow overlapping jurisdictions with churches with which we are in communion, so it is not clear to me why any approval process by the Communion is necessary in these canons. Also, since a new diocese must declare unqualified accession to the constitution and canons of The Episcopal Church, changing the constitution and canons of the church to conform to the Covenant would seem to be all that is necessary here. The Commission should have been more helpful.
Of course, this raises the question about the meaning of communion, impaired communion, and so forth. These are issues that require additional examination. Although The Episcopal Church has not declared that it is not in communion with any other Anglican church, the analogous claim cannot be made of other church relative to ours. What do our canons mean when “some Church in communion with this Church” refers to a church of the Communion that claims not to be in communion with us? How do things work if we do not adopt the Covenant or if we adopt it and are sanctioned by “relational consequences”?
It seems unnecessary to remark on all the canons that the SCCC believes might need to be modified, though I do want to say something about Canon 2.4 of Title I regarding the role of the Presiding Bishop. About this, the report says the following:
In Title I, Canon 2.4, the role of the Presiding Bishop as chief pastor and primate is described, with no express duty or authority regarding our participation in the Anglican Communion.I believe we must tread very carefully here. We can require the Presiding Bishop to participate in the Communion, but we cannot assure that the Communion will always permit this. In particular, we do not want to grant the Presiding Bishop to make decisions binding The Episcopal Church and encroaching on the proper powers of the General Convention. It is not clear to me that, as the SCCC asserts, the Presiding Bishop must “become the Anglican Communion de facto compliance officer for the Episcopal Church.”
Final Thoughts
The SCCC report is certainly helpful and should make it clear to all that, should we adopt the Covenant with integrity, our polity must be forever changed. I believe that the required changes would not be for the better. One could have wished that the Commission would have been clearer about why certain provisions of our governing documents need to be changed and just what those changes might look like. If we are considering seriously adoption of the Covenant, we need to discuss specific changes in our governance.There are other related topics not treated in the SCCC report. One could argue that these topics were beyond its charge, but they do need to be considered.
What effect would Covenant adoption have on property litigation? The church has been able to argue that The Episcopal Church is beholden to no authority above the General Convention and that pronouncements from the Anglican Communion have no relevance to property litigation. Under the Covenant, it is not clear that we can continue to assert that position, particularly given the authority some attribute to the Windsor Report.
The SCCC report does not suggest what the consequences might be of rejecting the Covenant. The Canadian report opined that the consequences would be few and minor. If that is so, one could argue that, given the consequence of Covenant adoption, the conservative path would be to reject the Covenant outright. (This is certainly my preference.)
Finally, the report failed to consider facts on the ground that could cause problems for The Episcopal Church as soon as the Covenant is adopted. For example, we now have two active, un-closeted homosexual partnered bishops in the church. Knowing that consecrating such persons is anathema to many, perhaps even most, of the churches in the Communion, would the church need to depose Gene Robinson and Mary Glasspool as part of the Covenant-adoption process? I would like to know; they would like to know.
Despite the limitations of the SCCC report, its content only adds to the growing list of reasons not to adopt the Anglican Covenant. The changes the Covenant would effect in The Episcopal Church do not weigh favorably on Covenant adoption.
My view of the Covenant, of course, is well known. Let me simply close by saying that I wore my Integrity button to church yesterday. It well articulates what our church’s position should be going forward.
June 25, 2011
Gazpacho
One of the joys of summer is making and eating gazpacho, that cold Spanish soup that is a kind of semi-liquid salad. I usually get a craving for this dish out of the blue, and, when I do, I have to go to the supermarket, collect the necessary ingredients, and throw them together as quickly as possible. One summer, I discovered that the local T.G.I. Friday’s served gazpacho, and I spent summer afternoons reading at one of its outdoor tables while eating gazpacho and drinking gin and tonic. The last time I stopped by T.G.I. Friday’s, however, no one on the staff had ever heard of gazpacho, and it was certainly not on the menu.
Thus, when I experienced my annual need for a gazpacho fix a few days ago, I knew I was on my own. I didn’t even take the time to track down my usual recipe; I went to the Web, found some tasty-sounding instructions, and ran off to the store. The resulting soup was chunkier than usual but was especially delectable. The recipe yielded a lot of gazpacho.
Unfortunately, the warm summer weather I usually associate with the dish is not now in evidence. It has been cool and occasionally raining in Pittsburgh over the past few days. Nonetheless, I had gazpacho and a glass of iced tea for lunch today, and I ate outside on the deck. The temperature was only in the high 60s, but lunch was very satisfying.
Thus, when I experienced my annual need for a gazpacho fix a few days ago, I knew I was on my own. I didn’t even take the time to track down my usual recipe; I went to the Web, found some tasty-sounding instructions, and ran off to the store. The resulting soup was chunkier than usual but was especially delectable. The recipe yielded a lot of gazpacho.
Unfortunately, the warm summer weather I usually associate with the dish is not now in evidence. It has been cool and occasionally raining in Pittsburgh over the past few days. Nonetheless, I had gazpacho and a glass of iced tea for lunch today, and I ate outside on the deck. The temperature was only in the high 60s, but lunch was very satisfying.
Report Released
Yesterday, the report from the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons offering the commission’s views on the canonical changes that will be necessary if The Episcopal Church adopts the Anglican Covenant was released by the church’s Executive Council. I believe it was first posted at The Lead. Episcopal News Service later published a story about the release that included a link to a PDF version of the report.
As one who urged that the report be released, I want to express my gratitude to members of Executive Council for changing their decision not to release the report immediately. I understand there may be some ambivalence about releasing the report—read Mark Harris’s thoughts on his blog—but I do believe that making the report public now was the right thing to do.
Although some people suggested that Executive Council had acted out of less-than-commendable motives, I suspect that (1) release of the report was simply not on Executive Council’s to-do list, and (2) a we’ve-always-done-it-that-way attitude, rooted in pre-Internet procedures, had some influence over the initial decision. It is to be hoped that this incident will result in greater transparency in the governance of The Episcopal Church in the future.
As for the report itself, I have only skimmed it so far. I will have more to say about its substance after I have spent more time reading it and digesting its contents. Meanwhile, I will be thinking kind thoughts about the members of Executive Council.
As one who urged that the report be released, I want to express my gratitude to members of Executive Council for changing their decision not to release the report immediately. I understand there may be some ambivalence about releasing the report—read Mark Harris’s thoughts on his blog—but I do believe that making the report public now was the right thing to do.
Although some people suggested that Executive Council had acted out of less-than-commendable motives, I suspect that (1) release of the report was simply not on Executive Council’s to-do list, and (2) a we’ve-always-done-it-that-way attitude, rooted in pre-Internet procedures, had some influence over the initial decision. It is to be hoped that this incident will result in greater transparency in the governance of The Episcopal Church in the future.
As for the report itself, I have only skimmed it so far. I will have more to say about its substance after I have spent more time reading it and digesting its contents. Meanwhile, I will be thinking kind thoughts about the members of Executive Council.
June 23, 2011
The Anglican Mission in England
Today, GAFCON announced yesterday’s advent of the Anglican Mission in England (AMIE). Its origin was explained this way:The AMIE has been encouraged in this development by the Primates’ Council of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans (GAFCON) who said in a communiqué from Nairobi in May 2011: “We remain convinced that from within the Provinces which we represent there are creative ways by which we can support those who have been alienated so that they can remain within the Anglican family.”Does this sound familiar? Within The Episcopal Church, the American Anglican Council and the Network of Anglican Dioceses and Parishes (NACDAP) expressed similar goals.
The press release continues:
The AMIE is determined to remain within the Church of England. The desire of those who identify with the society is to have an effective structure which enables them to remain in the Church of England and work as closely as possible with its institutions. Churches or individuals may join or affiliate themselves with the AMIE for a variety of reasons. Some may be churches in impaired communion with their diocesan bishop who require oversight. Others may be in good relations with their bishop but wish to identify with and support others.Does this really sound helpful, or is AMIE simply subverting the local church? I thought the Church of England was the Anglican Mission in England.
In the U.S., of course, NACDAP morphed into the Anglican Church in North American, poaching congregations, liberating property from The Episcopal Church, and declaring itself to be an Anglican Communion “province in formation.”
More history is offered in this paragraph:
The launch of AMIE follows four and a half years of discussions with senior Anglican leaders in England about ways in which those who are genuinely in need of effective orthodox oversight in the Church of England can receive it.Need I point out that Bob Duncan and his merry men were encouraged in their nefarious enterprise by none other than Rowan Williams?
I welcome AMIE. Perhaps it will awaken the somnambulant Church of England to the dangerous game it and its leaders have been playing. Rowan Williams has yielded all too readily to the extortion of Evangelicals and Anglo-Catholics at home and abroad. He has been blind to the damage he has caused elsewhere. Perhaps when the damage is done to his own church—that damage will come soon enough—he will open his eyes to the colossal errors he has made. It will, of course, be too late.
June 22, 2011
Clatworthy Trashes Covenant Introduction
I have offered my thoughts about most of the parts of the Anglican Covenant. I have tried to wrap my mind around the complexities of Section 4 in “Section 4 Decoded,” and I have pointed out problems in Section 1 (“A Critique of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant - Part 1”) and Sections 2 and 3 (“A Critique of Sections 1, 2, and 3 of the Anglican Covenant - Part 2”). In “Why No Anglican Covenant: Part 1 ” and in “Why No Anglican Covenant: Part 2,” I dealt with the Covenant as a whole, though not definitively. I have also suggested the sort of covenant that might be truly useful in “The Covenant We Do Need.”
I have said little about the Introduction to the Anglican Covenant, however, that odd piece of text that is declared not to be part of the Covenant but must always be printed with it. I have not discussed the Introduction because, to me at least, it seems to be theological gobbledegook. I have read it repeatedly without being able to follow its logic. Not being a theologian myself, I assumed that I was simply not learned enough to understand it. Mind you, even if it makes sense to the biblical scholar, it is a decided flaw that the Covenant is introduced by an essay that is impenetrable to ordinary Anglicans.
Happily, someone has finally offered analysis of the Introduction. The Lead quotes Jonathan Clatworthy on the Introduction in “The other troubling parts of the Covenant.” Clatworthy’s remarks are very reassuring; maybe I’m not so dumb or ignorant as I had feared.
“The Introduction centres round a string of biblical texts interpreted in a ‘conservative evangelical’ manner which no reputable biblical scholar would approve of,” Clatworthy asserts. He also sees outright contradictions in the Introduction. For example, here is his take on paragraph 5:
I have said little about the Introduction to the Anglican Covenant, however, that odd piece of text that is declared not to be part of the Covenant but must always be printed with it. I have not discussed the Introduction because, to me at least, it seems to be theological gobbledegook. I have read it repeatedly without being able to follow its logic. Not being a theologian myself, I assumed that I was simply not learned enough to understand it. Mind you, even if it makes sense to the biblical scholar, it is a decided flaw that the Covenant is introduced by an essay that is impenetrable to ordinary Anglicans.
Happily, someone has finally offered analysis of the Introduction. The Lead quotes Jonathan Clatworthy on the Introduction in “The other troubling parts of the Covenant.” Clatworthy’s remarks are very reassuring; maybe I’m not so dumb or ignorant as I had feared.
“The Introduction centres round a string of biblical texts interpreted in a ‘conservative evangelical’ manner which no reputable biblical scholar would approve of,” Clatworthy asserts. He also sees outright contradictions in the Introduction. For example, here is his take on paragraph 5:
Pompous cant. this text contradicts itself. The covenant is ‘not intended to change the character’ of Anglicanism, but it is intended to reaffirm and intensify the bonds of affection. Reaffirm okay, but intensify means change.Read the whole post at The Lead for yourself. It is brief but devastating.
Get your No Anglican Covenant merchandise at the Farrago Gift Shop.
June 21, 2011
Release the Report
A story from Episcopal News Service at the end of last week’s meeting of the Executive Council has caused something of an insurrection among politically active Episcopalians. As I mentioned in my post “Canadian Report Proves Text of Covenant Sucks,” Executive Council has chosen to sit on a report from the Standing Commission on Constitution and Canons (SCCC) until it is published in the Blue Book in October. The report offers the commission’s view on what changes to our constitution and canons might be necessary were The Episcopal Church to adopt the Anglican Covenant. The ostensible reason for not releasing the report is that “some people may assume that decisions have already been made.”
I think it fair to say that the average Episcopalian that cares about the polity of our church is capable of understanding that the SCCC report deals in hypotheticals, which, after all, is necessary for evaluating possible future action by the church. Presumably, the report offers decision makers useful data to use in deciding what the 2012 General Convention should do with the Anglican Covenant. Is waiting four months to get this data going to help deputies make better decisions? I cannot imagine how.
Meanwhile, the failure to release the report is causing a good deal of conversation among deputies and other interested folk, both in The Episcopal Church and elsewhere in the Communion. Jim Naughton, who last week railed against Executive Council’s not making the SCCC report public, wrote another post on The Lead yesterday calling for the report’s immediate release:
I think it fair to say that the average Episcopalian that cares about the polity of our church is capable of understanding that the SCCC report deals in hypotheticals, which, after all, is necessary for evaluating possible future action by the church. Presumably, the report offers decision makers useful data to use in deciding what the 2012 General Convention should do with the Anglican Covenant. Is waiting four months to get this data going to help deputies make better decisions? I cannot imagine how.
Meanwhile, the failure to release the report is causing a good deal of conversation among deputies and other interested folk, both in The Episcopal Church and elsewhere in the Communion. Jim Naughton, who last week railed against Executive Council’s not making the SCCC report public, wrote another post on The Lead yesterday calling for the report’s immediate release:
The information in that report—which the sub-committee received several months ago—is of great interest and importance to members of the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion. It needs to be released to the wider public. We hope the Executive Council will publish the document immediately. We are happy to help.To date, neither the report nor an explanation for its being withheld that is more logical and less paternalistic than what we have heard so far has been forthcoming from the Executive Council. I realize that Council members will need to consult with one another before the report can be released. I hope they do so quickly and do the right thing. Meanwhile, the rest of us should be putting pressure on Council members in any way we can to convince them to make the SCCC report public.
June 20, 2011
Pittsburgh Diocese Unexcited by Covenant
A number of dioceses of The Episcopal Church have publicized statements concerning the Anglican Communion that were submitted to the Executive Council. The latest, for example, came from the Episcopal Diocese of Central New York and can be read on The Lead. These statements have generally come from General Convention deputations, consisting of those people who will be called upon to vote on any resolutions relating to the Anglican Covenant on behalf of the church.
The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh took a broader approach to giving feedback on the covenant. On behalf of the diocese, the Rev. Jeff Murph, chair of a task force appointed by Bishop Ken Price, wrote a one-page report of discussions concerning the Covenant. The report offers no advice to the church about the Covenant nor suggests how Pittsburgh deputies might be inclined to vote in the 2012 General Convention.
As explained in the report, the Task Force on the Study of the Anglican Covenant led a discussion of the Covenant at a fall 2010 clergy conference. Parishes were asked to conduct programs on the Covenant and to report to the task force, but only 20% of the parishes (and none of the three largest in the diocese, including my own) actually did so. Despite the fact that Murph characterized the clergy conference discussion as “lively,” few Pittsburgh clergy seem to have been energized enough by the Covenant issue to bring it to the attention of their parishes. In fact, of the five task force members, only Murph is associated with a parish that reported studying the Covenant.
The six parishes whose discussions are described in the report structured consideration of the Covenant in various ways. Generally, the whole congregation was invited to participate, though one discussion was carried on only by the parish vestry.
A few excerpts from the report will give some sense of what was said in discussions of the Covenant:
The full Pittsburgh report can be read here.
The Episcopal Diocese of Pittsburgh took a broader approach to giving feedback on the covenant. On behalf of the diocese, the Rev. Jeff Murph, chair of a task force appointed by Bishop Ken Price, wrote a one-page report of discussions concerning the Covenant. The report offers no advice to the church about the Covenant nor suggests how Pittsburgh deputies might be inclined to vote in the 2012 General Convention.
As explained in the report, the Task Force on the Study of the Anglican Covenant led a discussion of the Covenant at a fall 2010 clergy conference. Parishes were asked to conduct programs on the Covenant and to report to the task force, but only 20% of the parishes (and none of the three largest in the diocese, including my own) actually did so. Despite the fact that Murph characterized the clergy conference discussion as “lively,” few Pittsburgh clergy seem to have been energized enough by the Covenant issue to bring it to the attention of their parishes. In fact, of the five task force members, only Murph is associated with a parish that reported studying the Covenant.
The six parishes whose discussions are described in the report structured consideration of the Covenant in various ways. Generally, the whole congregation was invited to participate, though one discussion was carried on only by the parish vestry.
A few excerpts from the report will give some sense of what was said in discussions of the Covenant:
Some of the questions that surfaced during the studies were: What happens if we don’t sign it? Is this the only way to move forward? Who would benefit the most? Is the Covenant active or passive? Why are we doing this now? Will it actually do or change anything? How do we balance autonomy and interdependence?It would not surprise me to learn that the attitudes in Pittsburgh are not that different from those in other dioceses. That is disappointing here, however, since there is a direct connection from the Covenant to the episcopate of deposed bishop Robert Duncan, from whose depredations the diocese is still suffering. It is also disappointing that Sections 1–3 of the Covenant consistently receive high marks from those studying the Covenant. (The Central New York was as accepting of those sections as were Pittsburgh Episcopalians.) As I have argued earlier (here and here), Sections 1–3 exist primarily to allow the operation of the nearly universally condemned Section 4.
Uniformly, all parishes reported positive reactions to the first three sections of the Covenant as an accurate and helpful description of Anglican belief.
In the question of how most people were inclined to feel toward the Covenant, five of the six parishes reporting indicated ambivalence leaning toward a guarded hopefulness (though with more skeptical minorities). One parish reported negative attitudes toward the Covenant. One parish vestry unanimously endorsed the Covenant.
Most parish responses indicated generally low enthusiasm for the whole enterprise, often related to the perceived esoteric nature of the text and terminological difficulties in understanding it as well as an uncertainty as to what effect it might have on the Episcopal Church.
The full Pittsburgh report can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)