AskThePriest.org

Statement from the Presiding Bishop on the Camp Allen and Kigali meetings

In keeping with my general (but not always successful) policy of keeping my personal commentary on church politics off of this page, my commentary on the Kigali meeting can be found at Ayia Iluvatar here. The much more eloquent statement of Frank Griswold our Presiding Bishop can be found below. (the original ENS story is here.)

---

My dear brothers and sisters:

We have all received within the last days a letter from the bishops who gathered at Camp Allen at the invitation of Don Wimberly. As well, you may have seen an unsigned communiqué sent from a gathering of primates and others from the global south which was held in Rwanda. Let me share some reflections about these two meetings with you.

With regard to the gathering in Texas, advance and follow-up information about this meeting suggest an involvement by the Archbishop of Canterbury. It is important for you to know that the Texas meeting was in no way held at the Archbishop's initiative nor was it planned in collaboration with him. The two bishops from the Church of England did not attend as delegates of the Archbishop, nor were they empowered to speak on his behalf except to give the message that "the bishops meeting are bishops of the Catholic Church in the Anglican Communion." The Archbishop has always encouraged exchanges of views, as have I. Therefore, I appreciate the concern of those who attended the Texas meeting for the faithfulness of our church. At the same time, such encouragement does not necessarily imply affirmation of or agreement with points of view expressed in the course of such exchanges.

I would like to observe here that our House contains many points of view held by persons of unquestionable faith whose desire is to be faithful to the mind and mission of Christ. Because of this, I have seen during these nine years how unhelpful it can be for us as a community when we separate ourselves from one another by signing, or not signing, statements. As we have learned, position statements can easily occlude the more subtle dimensions of agreement and disagreement, which is where our deepest engagement with one another can occur. As much as we draw comfort from those who share our own point of view, it is important for us on all sides to realize that truth in its fullness cannot be contained in any one perspective.

The fact that some among us feel we did not go far enough in responding to the invitations of the Windsor Report while others feel we have gone too far is to be expected in a church in which people hold differing theological perspectives. We are making our best efforts within our church to be faithful to the Windsor process, and I am gratified by how we, for the most part, are comporting ourselves as brothers and sisters in Christ.

The letter from Texas said it is the clear sense of the signers that "the General Convention of 2006 did not adequately respond to the request made of the Episcopal Church by the Communion through the Windsor Report and the Primates at Dromantine." It says that this view is "consistent with the Archbishop of Canterbury's Holy Cross Day letter to the Primates." Given the very nuanced and cautious way in which the Archbishop expresses himself, I think it is important here to refer back to that letter and what Rowan actually said, and I quote: "It is also clear that the Episcopal Church has taken very seriously the recommendations of the Windsor Report; but the resolutions of General Convention still represent what can only be called a mixed response to the Dromantine requests. The advisory group has spent much time in examining these resolutions in great detail, and its sense is that although some aspects of these requests have been fully dealt with, there remain some that have not."

I note here that Archbishop Robin Eames, Chairman of the Lambeth Commission which produced the Windsor Report, says in his introduction: "This report is not a judgment. It is part of a process. It is part of a pilgrimage toward healing and reconciliation." As such, I believe the "Windsor process" is a process of mutual growth which calls for patience, mutual understanding and generosity of spirit rather than stark submission.

It also needs to be said that the assessment of the responses of the Episcopal Church to the Windsor process is not the responsibility of self-chosen groups within the Communion. At the April 2006 meeting of the Joint Standing Committee of the primates and the Anglican Consultative Council a small working group drawn from different parts of the Communion was identified to consider the actions and decisions of our General Convention. They will communicate to both the Joint Standing Committee and then the Primates Meeting in February. The Archbishop has repeatedly underscored the need to allow this process to unfold.

The General Convention in Resolution A165 affirmed our commitment to the Windsor process. From my perspective, being faithful to the Windsor process – and the Covenant process which is integral to it – calls for patience and rules out actions which would preempt their orderly unfolding. In my view, portions of the Kigali statement that take issue with the actions of the Episcopal Church in advance of hearing from the advisory group, and before the Covenant has an opportunity to be developed, are inconsistent with the Windsor process, as are continuing incursions of bishops from other provinces into our dioceses. Patience and respect for one another and our provincial structures are required on the part of us all.

The communiqué from Kigali recommends that there be a separate ecclesial body within our province. The suggestion of such a division raises profound questions about the nature of the church, its ordering and its oversight. I further believe such a division would open the way to multiple divisions across other provinces of the Communion, and any sense of a coherent mission would sink into chaos. Such a recommendation appears to be an effort to preempt the Windsor process and acting upon it would create a fact on the ground, making healing and reconciliation – the stated goal of the Windsor process – that much more difficult to achieve.

Having said that, I am well aware that some within our own Episcopal Church are working to achieve such an end. Efforts, some more overt than others, toward this end have been underway since before the 1998 Lambeth Conference. More recently, the Colorado-based organization called the Anglican Communion Institute has posted on its website a paper outlining a four-part strategy toward a new "Constituent body" in the United States, rather than the Episcopal Church, which would participate in the development of an Anglican Covenant. Though the Texas meeting included consultants who are part of the Anglican Communion Institute, I know this goal is not shared by all of the bishops who signed the letter from Texas.

The Kigali communiqué questions Bishop Jefferts Schori's ability to represent all of our dioceses. The role of primates is to bear witness as fully as possible to the life and complexities of their own provinces. I have sought to bring to the primates' meetings the wide range of opinions and the consequent tensions within our own church. I have every confidence that Katharine will do the same. Furthermore, the voices from dioceses that the Kigali communiqué fears will not be heard seem to be well represented among the primates themselves.

I am in full agreement with the Kigali communiqué's declaration that the challenges facing our Anglican structures can be a distraction from the work of the gospel. I am glad to know that a great deal of time at Kigali was devoted to such concerns as poverty eradication, HIV/AIDS, peace building and evangelization. Here I note our own church's commitment to the United Nations Millennium Development Goals, and pray that our mutual concerns will allow us to work together for the healing and reconciliation of the world, and thereby find the source of our healing and reconciliation as a Communion.

I end these reflections with a quotation from one of our great Anglican spiritual guides and teachers of prayer, Evelyn Underhill. The coming of the Kingdom is perpetual. Again and again, freshness, novelty, power from beyond the world break in by unexpected paths bringing unexpected change. Those who cling to tradition and fear all novelty in God's relation to the world deny the creative activity of the Holy Sprit, and forget that what is now tradition was once innovation; that the real Christian is always a revolutionary, belongs to a new race, and has been given a new name and a new song.

May we indeed be guided by the creative activity of the Holy Spirit as we continue through these challenging days, and in the fullness of time may our various divisions find their reconciliation in the One in whom all things have been reconciled, making it possible for us -- with one heart and one mind -- to sing a new song.

Yours ever in Christ,

Frank

Technorati Tags: anglican, christianity, ecclesiology, episcopal, Katherine Jefferts Schori, religion

Habemus Matrem Mark II

This was the article for my congregation's September parish newsletter. I have been told it bears wider publication - judge for yourself!

I have spent a lot of time since General Convention this summer thinking about the impact of our election of Katherine Jefferts Schori as our new Presiding Bishop. For a long time, I was simply trying to get over the shock (It was a pleasant shock, but a deep one). Before convention, a common thing you heard (and something I helped perpetuate, I must confess) was “She’s probably the most qualified candidate, but she’ll never get elected at this time in our church’s life.” Her overwhelming election by the House of Bishops set our House of Deputies into an uproar. The thing that struck me the most was the emotional reaction from many of the female deputies. One friend of mine began crying after she heard the news. She told me later that she was surprised at her own reaction. The elevation of a woman to our highest executive position touched on some lingering feeling that the church still considered her ordained ministry of less validity than mine simply because of her gender. Jefferts Schori’s election was a powerful symbol that in the Episcopal Church we take seriously Paul’s admonition that in Christ there is no spiritual distinction between male or female. As Episcopalian Robin Williams says in his Top Ten Reasons to be an Episcopalian, “Male and female, God created them; male and female, we ordain them.”

The effect of her election on the convention in retrospect was tremendous. Many of us were disheartened when a major piece of legislation (A133) that had been painstakingly designed by a bipartisan committee to respond to the Windsor Report failed in the House of Deputies. A different resolution, B033, was drafted and passed by the House of Bishops, but would not have passed our house if it had not been for Jefferts Schori’s personal plea that we pass it. There are those that claim that her act was interference in a legislative process. I see it as a bishop taking a leadership role and doing something for the good of the church at great personal cost. It is interesting to reflect that had someone else been elected Presiding Bishop, they probably would not have had the clout with the “moderate left” to get B033 passed. As one female deputy said on the floor, “This resolution tears at everything I hold dear, but I will vote for it for her.”

The reaction of the Anglican Communion to our election of a woman as Presiding Bishop is interesting. It’s no secret that many of the Anglican provinces are not fond of the idea of women as bishops (or priests or deacons for that matter.) Even a few of our own dioceses continue to exercise a local option not to ordain women. Although only three Anglican provinces have consecrated women as bishops, fourteen out of thirty-eight have provisions that would allow for such a consecration. Commission reports and resolutions of the Lambeth conference make it clear that the consensus is that this is a difference that we can live with. So gender is not a place where it would bear fruit to criticize her. Instead, some are attacking her “liberal” views, although she certainly does not appear to be any more radical than her predecessors. Indeed, her action of supporting B033 tends to indicate that she is willing to subsume personal beliefs and preferences in order to foster relationship and communication between diverse parties.

But is this all really a male power trip? Every time I read an article about women in the Anglican Communion, I am shocked out of my thinking about bishops, power structures and who’s in and out. Time and time again, the voices of the women of the Anglican Communion have insisted that there are more important issues facing us than issues of sexuality and ecclesial power. People are dying from hunger and preventable disease. Infant mortality is on the rise. Children are being drafted as soldiers. Finding sources of clean water is an increasing problem in parts of the world. Anglican women consistently maintain that while they might have differences around issues of sexuality, these basic issues of human dignity and economic justice trump all of the bluster and saber-rattling that the bishops are doing.

What will it be like to inject a woman into the “Old Boy’s Club” of the primates meeting? I can only speculate, but the hope that I have read from Anglican women around the world is that she may be able to change the entire debate to one focused on how we build the Kingdom of God rather than how we organize ourselves. It could be that a “Woman’s Touch” is exactly what we need at this point in our history to bring us back to reality.

David+

Technorati Tags: anglican, christianity, episcopal, Katherine Jefferts Schori, politics, religion, women

To Confess or Not To Confess....

A reader writes in, "Does the Episcopalian Church practice the Sacrament of Reconciliation?"

The short answer is yes. But the practice does deserve more than a brief affirmation.

Reconciliation of a Penitent is what is often referred to as confession. This probably brings up images of a special booth with a priest on one side of the screen and the penitent on the other as seen in countless movies. As practiced in the Episcopal Church, the place would usually be either the worship space of the church or the clergy person's office.

The saying I heard about confession in The Episcopal Church is "All may. Some should. None must." And with private confession to a priest not being compulsory, most Episcopalians never bother unless they attend an Anglo-Catholic Parish.

I think this is worth a second look as the centuries long practice of confessing one's sins to God in the presence of a priest who can then pronounce absolution is a powerful sacrament. I have found in my own life that it is an important way to make a break with past sins. Saying the confession out loud and having a priest give counsel and pronounce absolution is a powerful act. I not only affirm that The Episcopal Church offers the sacrament of Reconciliation, I recommend the practice highly.

One further word on the sacrament. A monk I know has spoken of the confessional as God's Septic Tank. We dump the waste of our lives in confession, freeing ourselves from the baggage too long carried around. But having cleansed out hearts in confession, we must then let the sins go. To go back over those past failings would be as useful as reaching back into a septic tank to stir up the contents. Confess your sins and God will separate them from you as far as the east is from the west. Confess them in the presence of another, expressing true repentance and amendment of life and you should find it easier to walk away from that past.

Peace, Frank+

Technorati Tags: anglican, Anglo-Catholic, christianity, confession, episcopal, forgiveness, religion, Sacrament of Reconciliation, sacraments, sin

Humility, Shame and Guilt

A reader writes in:

'I am having trouble lately distinguishing between proper humility and feelings of shame. When I look at my (pathetic, sinful) self, I know very well that humility is in order but I have difficulty going there without feeling really bad about myself. Can you help me to see this in a more helpful way?'

A problem being able to understand the difference between humility, shame and guilt is not uncommon. Our culture, including the Christian Culture, often conflates the three, making it hard to understand how different these concepts are. This is not suprising, considering that Christianity first spread in the Roman Empire, which is often used as a primary example of a shame society. Religion can never be completely separated from the culture it grows in. Let's examine the concepts with some definitions. Canadian writer Paul Hiebert characterizes shame this way:

"Shame is a reaction to other people's criticism, an acute personal chagrin at our failure to live up to our obligations and the expectations others have of us. In true shame oriented cultures, every person has a place and a duty in the society. One maintains self respect, not by choosing what is good rather than what is evil, but by choosing what is expected of one. "

Shame is externally initiated. It is the feeling we have when we know other people disapprove of us for our actions, lifestyle, appearance, or any other part of who we are. Guilt, by contrast, is internally initiated. Once again, Paul Hiebert:

"Guilt is a feeling that arises when we violate the absolute standards of morality within us, when we violate our conscience. A person may suffer from guilt although no one else knows of his or her misdeed; this feeling of guilt is relieved by confessing the misdeed and making restitution. True guilt cultures rely on an internalized conviction of sin as the enforcer of good behavior, not, as shame cultures do, on external sanctions."

Shame and guilt are similar - the difference is whether pressure to conform to community norms comes through sanction (shame) or through internal processes (guilt). Although both guilt and shame are considered exclusively negative in parts of our culture, it is hard to deny that they can sometimes be used for positive purposes. For example, a corporation who is polluting the environment in a way that is legal but immoral might be stopped by protest (shame) or by a whistleblower (guilt). On the other hand, both have been used for centuries by majorities to ensure compliance to norms of behavior that are often harmful to the populations the norm is being enforced on. An example might be the lingering idea (based on a particular interpretation of original sin) that women are inherently more sinful due to the Eve's actions in the Garden of Eden. The resultant shame was used to argue against women's equality.

Shame should almost never be a part of the Christian faith. We are specifically forbidden to judge others (Matt 7:1). Shame requires a judgement and then the application of punishment to bring the offender back into line. In the Episcopal tradition, the Book of Common Prayer ( p. 400) contains the 'Disciplinary Rubrics;"

If the priest knows that a person who is living a notoriously evil life intends to come to Communion, the priest shall speak to that person privately, and tell him that he may not come to the Holy Table until he has given clear proof of repentance and amendment of life.

The priest shall follow the same procedure with those who have done wrong to their neighbors and are a scandal to the other members of the congregation, not allowing such persons to receive Communion until they have made restitution for the wrong they have done, or have at least promised to do so.

When the priest sees that there is hatred between members of the congregation, he shall speak privately to them, telling them that they may not receive Communion until they have forgiven each other. And if the person or persons on one side truly forgive the others and desire and promise to make up for their faults, but those on the other side refuse to forgive, the priest shall allow those who are penitent to come to Communion, but not those who are stubborn.

In all such cases, the priest is required to notify the bishop, within fourteen days at the most, giving the reasons for refusing Communion.

In this case, shame is being used to bring a "notoriously evil" person back into the fold. As to exactly what "notoriously evil" means, that's a really good question. In seminary, we had discussions of when we might use this rubric, and we were all uncertain of what could possibly be so bad (and known to the priest as well) that might warrant using it. Most things we could come up with (murder, theft, abuse, etc.) would probably only be known to the priest after it had become public. (Confession is a different issue, but such things would be dealt with BEFORE the Sunday service.) Shame is a "Nuclear Option" that is as likely to send the sinner out of the church as it is to bring them to repentance, and it is very hard to determine if human judgement on divine matters is that secure.

Guilt, on the other hand, has the possibility to be a much more positive force, as it comes from an internal compass rather than being cohersive. The fact that someone might feel guilty after committing murder, robbery, etc. really is a good thing. Where it ceases being helpful is when we feel guilty about something that is either beyond our control or is actually good.

Sin is defined as anything that separates us from God. All sorts of things separate us from God, and only some of those are under our direct control. For instance, if my nation wages an unjust war, sin is imputed to me even if I speak out against it. If a company pollutes the environment and I buy their product, sin is imputed to me even if I have no idea about their practices.

Sin should be thought of as a state, not a set of actions and must not be confused with blame. It is a common state that all humans share. Being human means sinning. Although we can avoid specific sins, we cannot avoid the general state. One of the questions in the Episcopal baptism rite is: "Will you persevere in resisting evil, and, whenever you fall into sin, repent and return to the Lord?" (BCP 304) Not IF you fall into sin, but WHEN you fall into sin.

Humility is, in Christian terms, the acknowledgment of the proper state of relationship between ourselves and God. It is acknowledging that we are not God (not omnipotent, not omniscient and fallible) and that God is not us (Not an abusive parent, not irrational and loving without condition.) As far as our nature as sinful humans goes, we really should not feel guilty about it. Did we create ourselves in the image of God but without the other divine attributes? No. We are not to blame for the fact that we are sinners in general. When guilt convicts us of our sinfulness for specific acts, that is good, but guilt over our nature which we cannot control is not helpful.

Let's use the example of an alcoholic. A recovering alcoholic can feel guilt over the things that he has done under the influence, but to feel guilty over being an alcoholic and having the desire to drink is to feel guilty about something they have no control over. We are all members of "Sinners Anonymous." We are all tempted to sin. We all have "sinful thoughts." But guilt is not appropriate unless we either act upon them or obsess over them. Too much obsession over sin can actually be sinful in itself because it convinces the human that there is no way God can love them, thus creating a voluntary separation.

And even when we do sin, its not the end of the road. Indeed, in the end all things will be transformed to God's good. A powerful account of this is found in the Showings of Julian of Norwich:

"And God showed that sin will be no shame, but honor to man, for just as there is indeed a corresponding pain for every sin, just so love gives to the same soul a bliss for every sin. Just as various sins are punished with various pains, the more grievous are the sins, so they will be rewarded with various joys in heaven to reward the victories over them, to the degree in which the sin may have been painful and sorrowful to the soul on earth." (Long Text, Chapter XXXVIII)

Our forgiven sins are kind of like battle scars to God. The memory of them should inspire us with thanksgiving for the grace and love of God rather than guilt.

So in summary - Humility is the acknowledgment of our correct relationship to God. Shame is only appropriate in cases of "Notorious Sin" that harms the family of God. Guilt is only appropriate when we have done something specific that we need to make penance for. Otherwise, we simply need to acknowledge that we, like every other human who has been or will be( other than Jesus - a different topic), is a sinner in need of the grace of God, which is offered freely. God does not wish us to dwell on our sin. God wishes us to acknowledge our state (sin), confess and receive forgiveness for those sins which are known to us, and exalt in our beloved status with our loving creator.

David+

Further Reading:

"A Lesson of Love: The Revelations of Julian of Norwich" (Ojn Fr John-Julian, The Orde The Order of Julian of Norwich)

Technorati Tags: anglican, christianity, episcopal, ethics, forgiveness, guilt, humility, Julian of Norwich, Paul Hiebert, religion, shame, shame society, sin, theology