the rh[+] factor

All are welcome!

Let us build a house where love can dwell and all can safely live.
A place where saints and children tell how hearts learn to forgive.
Built of hopes and dreams and visions, rock of faith and vault of grace.
here the love of Christ shall end divisionss:
All are welcome,
All are welcome in this place
~Marty Haugen (b. 1950)

Our bishops have spoken in a remarkably generous and Spirit filled way. They have affirmed a desire to remain in the Anglican Communion but have also made clear that if we must choose between our baptismal ecclesiology (all are welcome) and a type of church unity purchased with the lives of a few (didn't Jesus already do that?) then they are ready, able and willing to lead this church through that wilderness. We will not sacrifice the vision we believe God has given this church to a crisis that we believe has been manufactured.

Stunning!

I've read the bishop's statements several times over by now. What is capturing my attention most this morning is their conviction that the church is not theirs (or anyone else's) to divide. In the third of their three resolutions they say:

It is incumbent upon us as disciples to do our best to follow Jesus in the increasing experience of the leading of the Holy Spirit. We fully understand that others in the Communion believe the same, but we do not believe that Jesus leads us to break our relationships. We proclaim the Gospel of what God has done and is doing in Christ, of the dignity of every human being, and of justice, compassion, and peace. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ there is no Jew or Greek, no male or female, no slave or free. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including women, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that in Christ all God's children, including gay and lesbian persons, are full and equal participants in the life of Christ's Church. We proclaim the Gospel that stands against any violence, including violence done to women and children as well as those who are persecuted because of their differences, often in the name of God. The Dar es Salaam Communiqué is distressingly silent on this subject. And, contrary to the way the Anglican Communion Network and the American Anglican Council have represented us, we proclaim a Gospel that welcomes diversity of thought and encourages free and open theological debate as a way of seeking God's truth. If that means that others reject us and communion with us, as some have already done, we must with great regret and sorrow accept their decision.

This the Episcopal Church I remember. This is the Anglican vision that first drew me in from the rather dreary Protestant evangelicalism of my youth (hey, it was the 1970s). This is an expression of the faith I'd sign up for all over again.

How about you?

I'm also taken with their clarity of history and our Church's place within it.

Third, it violates our founding principles as The Episcopal Church following our own liberation from colonialism and the beginning of a life independent of the Church of England.

Fourth, it is a very serious departure from our English Reformation heritage. It abandons the generous orthodoxy of our Prayer Book tradition. It sacrifices the emancipation of the laity for the exclusive leadership of high-ranking Bishops. And, for the first time since our separation from the papacy in the 16th century, it replaces the local governance of the Church by its own people with the decisions of a distant and unaccountable group of prelates.

Most important of all it is spiritually unsound. The pastoral scheme encourages one of the worst tendencies of our Western culture, which is to break relationships when we find them difficult instead of doing the hard work necessary to repair them and be instruments of reconciliation. The real cultural phenomenon that threatens the spiritual life of our people, including marriage and family life, is the ease with which we choose to break our relationships and the vows that established them rather than seek the transformative power of the Gospel in them. We cannot accept what would be injurious to this Church and could well lead to its permanent division.

I'm also taken with their generosity. They issue invitations rather than ultimatums.

We invite the Archbishop [of Canterbury] and members of the Primate's Standing Committee to join us at our expense to three days of prayer and conversation about these important mattters. We belive there is an urgent need for us to meet face to face.

Lastly, I'm especially taken with their ability to hand the anxiety back to the Primates who try to demand that a crisis on their part is a crisis on our part. Rabbi Freidman would be proud.

With this affirmation both of our identity as a Church and our affection and commitment to the Anglican Communion, we find new hope that we can turn our attention to the essence of Christ's own mission in the world, to bring good news to the poor, to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to liberate the oppressed, and to proclaim the year of the Lord's favor (Luke 4:18-19). It is to that mission that we now determinedly turn.

There's more to come with a press conference today at 3:30 pm CDT, and with the blogosphere most likely about to explode with reaction and analysis.

pax [+]

caught between vows: proposal for a new "fast"

What bothers me most about the current Anglican crisis (and I do believe we have ben thrust into crisis by the Primates-- the question remains whether or not we will allow a crisis on their part necessitates a crisis on our part) is the human factor. We can argue over doctrine and polity all day long, but where those things really matter is in their incarnational praxis.

I've been asked if I could find a place within myself to willingly consent to the kind of "pause" our presiding bishop suggests we are being asked. How can I possibly answer that question knowing that I speak as an insider? I am a priest who is gay and partnered and who made it through the machinations of the curch to claim the place I now hold within it. Insiders have the kind of voice and power that such a pause necessarily prevents for others. To be asked to use that power over my brothers and sisters is untenable. It potentially places my ordination vows and my baptismal vows in direct conflict with one another. It is a deeply painful place to be.

You know what surprises me? I am surprised by what this crisis brings forth for some of my straight friends and parishioners. I've been surprised by their very clear conviction that if our church does not have the courage of its convictions then they will seek God elsewhere. They don't say it as a threat. They say it out of a deep belief in their baptismal vocation-- a vocation that we gave them-- that all are made one in Christ Jesus and now that that work is done our task is live into that reality. This crisis for them is not about people like me (as much as they may love me and wish to protect me), it's about people like all of us.

They believe the church is less about preserving things like buildings and doctrines and traditions, and more about allowing the love of Christ to set us free from those things that bind us. They believe that closing the door to changes in buildings and doctrines and traditions (things we might choose to do out of love for our traditions and communities) may actually close the door on the Holy Spirit.

I'm also caught by the predicament of our gay seminarians, postulants and candidates for Holy Orders. For some reason I'm in more constant contact with several of them since this mess began. When asked why they should continue on this journey I can only tell them that the "call" is about them and God but the ordination process is about them and the church. They must never confuse those two and learn to discern the limits the latter sometimes places on the former. We're all learning about that right now but I must confess I prefer this side of the collar to the other in which almost all the power is over you rather than even a little with you.

The incarnational power we may lose is with these folks, the ones I call the 2nd generation. Many of them have had the courage to consider ordained ministry because they first experienced the church through the ministry of the first waves of openly gay clergy. Not unlike young girls who felt the undeniable affirmation when they experienced a woman at the altar for the first time, gay folk have claimed their own incarnation as God's children in part because of the visible witness of gay clerics the church has offered them.

I remember back in Memphis when my own baptismal community raised me up for ordained ministry, seeing in me things I could not see in myself. I've used that experience as I've raised up others to consider discernment toward Holy Orders. Most often I see gifts in them that make my own pale by comparison. That's as it should be. The 2nd generation holds the potential for something different for the church in this regard. I long for the church to benefit from their ministries with and to us all. I confess it's a very personal longing, for I fear that we (I) may have lied to them about who and what the church is. We've taught them that baptism is the foundational ordination from which all else flows. We never taught them that subsequent sacraments sometimes call that foundation into question.

If we're not clear what kind of baptismal community we are offering, then I suggest a necessary "fast" so we may get our houses in order and stop the unintended spiritual violence we may cause some in our number. Until we are clear that we, like Jesus, invite everyone to God's table and to full participation in the life of the His body, then we are no longer able to baptize new ones into the household of faith.

I believe that makes crystalline the crisis we now face.

Is anyone else feeling trapped?