from Father Jake: "The Schism Has Been Postponed"

From Father Jake Stops the World blog...a very helpful rundown of some analysis of the GAFCON meeting/pilgrimage/conference in Jerusalem....

"The Schism Has Been Postponed"

Yesterday, Ruth Gledhill offered this report from GAFCON:

Several of the bishops in the audience in Jerusalem last night are drawing up secret plans to form a “Church within a Church” in an attempt to counter Western liberalism and reform the Church from within...

...The aim is not to split with the worldwide Anglican Communion, which counts 80 million members in 38 provinces, but to reform it from within.

Formal ties will be maintained with the Archbishop of Canterbury but fellowship members will consider themselves out of communion with provinces such as the US and Canada.

Members of the fellowship could attempt to opt out of the pastoral care of their diocesan bishop and seek oversight from a more conservative archbishop, either from their own country or abroad.

The success of the fellowship in averting schism will depend on the response of the local leadership...

Jim Naughton clarifies what most likely caused such a shift in goals:

...So the leaders of GAFCON are attempting to dress up strategic failure as the dawning of a new phase of their march toward victory, hoping that the media will bite. After five years of schismatic maneuvering, they have said, in effect, that they will associate closely with some Anglicans while trying to make life miserable for others--a state of affairs in no way different today than it was last month, last year or last decade...

Tobias Haller has come to a similar conclusion, while reminding us that postponing the schism is going to play havoc with the plans of one of our local break away groups:

...The leaders also appear to be grasping that the revolution and reformation of Anglicanism is going to take longer than they thought. Rather than a turning point, GAFCON will be the continuation of more of the same, as the leaders continue to work from within at the glorious reform of the Anglican Communion. Perhaps they are realizing at long last that there is not the impetus for a split they may have thought there was. As the whole independence effort by CANA in Virginia was to prove there was a “division” in the Anglican Communion (and The Episcopal Church) — after all, the judge said so, so it must be true! — the language of “working from within” will be of little solace to those who were, quite literally, banking on a split...

Mark Harris suspects this temporary backing away from schism may be part of a more long-range plan to grab the entire Anglican "franchise":

...So I don't buy the notion that the realignment gang is opting for a more modest option...not yet. The take over of the Anglican Communion is a long term process and if the realignment crowd must rest a while in the world of accommodation, where it claims to be a fellowship of real Anglicans within the shell of the remnants of the old, so be it.

But that fellowship will be working to remake the Anglican Communion into a world wide church with a head elected by a curia (read Primates) who will for sure demand to be representative of blocks of people, so that in effect the Global South Primates group will dictate the terms of office and elect the Metropolitan. They will work for a Covenant with a clear disciplinary code and separate out the sheep from the goats early on - don't sign don't come. From the front end they will exact an entry fee consisting of agreement to a statement of belief, or a covenant, or some other screening device...

Today, Riazat Butt reports that Peter Jensen of Sydney, who seems to be emerging as the leader of the GAFCONites, has confirmed that there will be no schism in the near future:

...Jensen is seen at the conference as the bridge between the hardline conservatives who want nothing to do with liberal churches in the US and Canada and those who wish to stay in the communion despite profound ideological differences over the ordination of gay clergy. It is agreed among the clutch of westerners at the conference that the real power will lie with the Australian delegates, not those from Africa...

...He also expressed doubts about the long-term prospects for Gafcon. "This is a coalition of people who would not necessarily work together. Will it work? We don't know." He insisted there was not a schism, but confirmed that there would a "structure within a structure", which would allow clergy and congregations to opt out of liberal churches and join more conservative groups.

I tend to agree with Mark's take on what is happening. Quite possibly the strategy has shifted from schism to going after the whole Anglican "franchise." I don't think it is going to work, any more than it did back when David Anderson was using the same line about TEC.

I suspect that they know such an attempted coup is not going to work, but they hope this ploy will keep their supporters in line by dangling a "new" strategy on which to hang their hopes (even though it is really a continuation of an "old" strategy, slightly repackaged). They hope this will buy them some time, maybe a decade or so, to get their ducks in a row. They can continue their plum picking forays in North America, until the time is finally right to form some new denomination which will be free of gay cooties.

It could make the next few years "more of the same," which is unfortunate, although the longer this is prolonged, the fewer Anglicans who will be left that agree with their take on things. In twenty years, not too many folks will still be listening to rhetoric that is so obviously the last gasp of a dying world view.

I'll let this Guardian editiorial have the last word:

...The issue on which all of this currently hinges is the status of openly gay people. Over the past half century, civil society in many parts of the world, including ours, has broken free from the long tradition of hostility and discrimination against gay people - and both society and individual lives are immeasurably the better for it. Now, inevitably and rightly, the same process is taking place in the churches, with pressure for the election of openly gay clergy and bishops and the blessing of same-sex unions. In the past, the church has managed such issues by covering them up. But on this issue in these times, that is no longer possible.

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has battled to hold both his church and the wider communion together in the face of these pressures. That is one of his jobs - and it has not been a dishonourable effort. Yet it seems clear that it has only delayed an inevitable - and ultimately necessary - confrontation over this issue. Dr Williams has not, contrary to the views of Archishop Akinola, led the church into this. But, now that it is coming, he has a profound responsibility to lead the church out of it, happily and without fear. The question facing Anglicans - and facing other religious groups too - is whether theirs is a faith that is loving enough to treat gay people as equals. If the communion cannot hold together in the face of this question, then so be it. Unity matters as long as the cause is a good one. If the cause is not good, then maybe nor is the unity...

Is God a Christian? ..., Desmond Tutu

Father Jake Stops the World has a great piece on "Is God a Christian," which was a speech that Desmond Tutu gave in Pittsburgh .... It's a must read...lots of food for thought ... I really love his line, "Can anyone say to the Dalai Lama, 'You are a good guy. What a shame you are not a Christian'?" ... a challenging and helpful speech that we really need to hear and discuss...

~from Father Jake Stops the World

From the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette:

Nobel Peace laureate Archbishop Desmond Tutu yesterday thanked Pittsburghers who worked to end apartheid in South Africa and received an unprecedented dual honorary doctorate from the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon University.

He also threw down a theological challenge on a doctrine that the worldwide Anglican Communion is threatening to split over.

In his sermon, he poked fun at the belief that only those who accept Jesus as their savior can enter heaven.

"Can you imagine that there are those who think God is a Christian?" he said to laughter from a mostly appreciative audience. "Can you tell us what God was before he was a Christian?"

...The church was filled with those who supported the archbishop's social justice concerns both now and 20 years ago, when black people couldn't enter white South African neighborhoods without a "guest worker" pass. He opened his sermon with thanks to those who had prayed, marched and gone to jail to protest apartheid.

"One of the great privileges ... is to be able to come to places such as this and say to you: We asked for your help. You gave it. We are free. Thank you, thank you, thank you," he said.

He spoke of marching side by side with rabbis and imams.

"They were all inspired by their faiths. I have yet to hear of a faith that says it's OK to be unjust," he said.

"Injustice and oppression isn't just evil, which it is. It's not just painful, which it certainly is for the victim. It's like spitting in the face of God."

He invoked his friendship with the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan Buddhist leader who has been exiled from his homeland for nearly 50 years. Although others would be embittered, the Dalai Lama is filled with "bubbly joyousness," he said.

"You have to be totally, totally insensitive not to know you are in the presence of someone who is holy and good."

He then asked, "Can anyone say to the Dalai Lama, 'You are a good guy. What a shame you are not a Christian'?"

Read it all HERE.

Exporting Schism??

One of the (probably too) many blogs that I read on the Anglican Communion is Father Jake Stops the World, his blog is edgy, provocative, and never without a lot of pithy Truth. He calls them as he sees them, and while I don't always agree with everything he writes, he gets me thinking, and gets me seeing things in new and nuanced ways. His entry today on "Exporting Schism" is provocative and very interesting:

"Since the schism in North America is being heralded as a great success, having gained the allegiance of 5 diocesan bishops (out of 110) and 60 congregations (out of 7,600), it appears that the same tactics will now be exported to England.

From the Telegraph:

...Reform also says it will bring in foreign archbishops to ordain priests in dioceses where incumbent bishops refuse to disassociate themselves from the American church, which appointed the openly homosexual Bishop of New Hampshire in 2003...

...The Rev Rod Thomas, the chairman elect of Reform, said: "The situation in the Anglican communion is so serious now that we have to plan for an inevitable split in the Church of England from top to bottom"...

Reform is a group that describes itself as "a network of churches and individuals within the Church of England, committed to the reform of ourselves, our congregation and our world by the gospel." Their "reform" seems to be primarily about getting rid of the gays.:




Read the rest of it HERE.

Father Jake Stops the World: Exporting Schism

Voices of the Ages

I ran across this on the Father Jake Stops the World blog, it's pretty good food for thought...-pmc

Voices of the Ages

________________________________

1st Century:
"Certainly Gentiles have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place Gentiles may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far the traditional theology of the church lets us move in that direction."

7th Century:
"Certainly followers of Augustine have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about not only the date of Easter, but the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place followers of Rome may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far the Celtic tradition of the church lets us move in that direction."

12th Century:
"Certainly Anglo-Saxon people have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place Anglo-Saxon people may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far Norman church tradition lets us move in that direction."

16th Century:
"Certainly recusants and dissenters have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place recusants and dissenters may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far the Established Church and Crown lets us move in that direction."

18th Century:
"Certainly colonials have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place colonials may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far Parliament lets us move in that direction."

19th Century:
"Certainly slaves throughout the Empire have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place slaves may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far slave owners let us move in that direction."

1900 - 1960's:
"Certainly African Americans have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place African Americans may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far white American tradition lets us move in that direction."

1970's:
"Certainly women have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place women may hold in offices of the church. The question is how far the traditional patriarchial theology of the church lets us move in that direction."

21st Century:
"Certainly gay and lesbian people have a place in the church as do all the baptized. The debate is currently about the appropriate limits of pastoral care and the place gay and lesbian people may hold in the offices of the church. The question is how far the traditional theology of the church lets us move in that direction." (The Most Reverend and Right Honorable Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury, 21 September AD 2007, New Orleans, LA, USA)

Paul Woodrum

Agreement to Disagree, a proposal by Paul Stanley

In light of all that is going on in the Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, this post by Paul Stanley (not the KISS performer, at least I think not) on "Fr. Jake Stops the World" blog has some very interesting proposals...and there have already been nearly 300 comments on the post ... it is worth a read if you have the time!

Peace, Peter

Here's a portion of the proposal:

In the comments of the previous post, Paul Stanley proposed "An Agreement to Disagree." I think it is worth further consideration. Here it is:

(Note that the ordering of the specific points has been amended from the original, with Paul's permission. The original order, to which the early comments refer, can be found here - J.)
__________________________

1) We agree to disagree. We accept that some Christians conscientiously believe that same sex relationships are legitimate and holy. We accept that some Christians consider them to be sinful. We do not regard the expression of either of these views as incompatible with full membership of the Church, and we specifically resolve that we remain in communion with those of both views.

(2) We agree, however, that where people choose to live in a same sex relationship, that relationship must be lived on the same principles as marriage between people of different sexes--with faithful and loving stability. We provide accordingly for the marriage of persons of the same sex.

(3) No minister will be compelled to marry people of the same sex. But if asked to do so, a minister whose conscience does not permit him or her to perform such a marriage must ensure that the couple are referred to a minister who is willing to do so, and must treat the request with pastoral sensitivity. Pastoral sensitivity is not necessarily inconsistent with making it clear that the minister's own view is that same sex marriage is wrong, but due restraint must be exercised, and the minister must always make it clear that this view is his own and one on which others disagree.

(4) No church will be required to have as its priest in charge or as an ordained minister a person who is married to a person of the same sex.

(5) No church will be required to have as its priest in charge or any ordained minister a person who is conscientiously unable to perform marriages for persons of the same sex.

(6) Where a diocese has a bishop who is married to a person of the same sex, arrangements will be made to delegate episcopal functions to a bishop who is not so married in relation to any parish that requests it.

(7) Where a diocese has a bishop who is conscientiously unable to perform marriages for persons of the same sex: (i) the bishop may not refuse to permit clergy in his or her diocese to perform such marriages and (ii) arrangements will be made to delegate episcopal functions to a bishop who does not have such conscientious objections in relation to any parish that requests it.

(8) But nobody may (i) refuse communion to a person on the grounds that he or she is married to a person of the same sex or (ii) deny the validity of the orders of any member of the clergy on the ground that he or she is married to a person of the same sex.

I don't think either side would or ought to be altogether happy with this. But I don't see why it couldn't be a modus vivendi.

For the entire text, check HERE.