American Anglican Council and the Institute on Religion and Democracy
Yesterday, I profiled some of the AAC's activities in the Episcopal Church. If their intent was to remain within TEC, to consult with conservative individuals, parishes, and dioceses, and to contribute their perspective, I would welcome their participation. However, it seems their intent is to have this church replaced, on the grounds that we aren't a valid branch of Anglicanism or Christianity anymore. To the extent that they are trying to supplant the Episcopal Church, they should not be tolerated as a part of this church.
There are links between the AAC and the Institute on Religion and Democracy. The IRD is a conservative watchdog and advocacy group. It is involved in the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church USA, and our church. I speculated that if the ELCA allows openly-gay clergy, the IRD will become involved with dissident groups in ELCA.
Jack Taylor, a private investigator, posted a message to the Bishops and delegates of the church in fall 03. I've trimmed it for brevity.
"A lot of attention has been focused in the aftermath of the events at General Convention on those who have expressed dissatisfaction. Much of it, according to inquiries to me, has been about the American Anglican Council (AAC) and the Institute for Religion and Democracy (IRD), two conservative organizations that share offices and ideas in Washington but don't acknowledge the connection as required by the IRS. [Editor: I believe that last statement is no longer true.]
...
According to recent income tax information, the IRD has focused its principal expenditures, if not full attention, on the Untied Methodist Church. In 2001 it spent $358,607 (40% its total expenditures, including its $76,890 salary to Diane Knippers) on "monitoring" the UM's activities and "public witness" of the UM leadership and public policy statements ...
IRD funding ... rose 40% in 2001 to $1.1 million after two years of slight declines of -6% and -10% in 2000 and 1999, respectively. Its primary funding come from individuals, probably including Howard Fieldstead Ahmanson Jr., the multi-millionaire, anti-gay member of the Southern California parish where the new AAC CEO is rector. It had five significant individual contributions in 2001, for $200K, $150K, $85K, $50K and $25K.
Based upon an article I wrote on December 7, 2000, the AAC had a secret agreement with Ahmanson to contribute $200K in matching funds (probably annually). This followed a deliberate effort by the AAC to become closer to Ahmanson (according to private communications among AAC board members which I obtained at the time). The unabashed purpose, according to those communications, was to obtain considerable contributions. The AAC's funding during 2001 was primarily through four individual contributions of $322.4K, $100K, and two for $20K each. It had two significant individual contributions in 2000 for $240K and $275K. I imagine Ahmanson has made good on his still secret agreement. This has been consistent the past four years.
This has helped the AAC stay afloat, so that, in effect, it may very well be an organization doing the bidding of its principal private and always secretive backer. The AAC spends most of its money on salaries (22%), consultants (16%), printing, rent, postage and travel, probably defraying the expenses of its six bishops and CEO flying around the country (30%). Its biggest grants were $25K to co-sponsor SEAD's 2001 conference in South Carolina and $9.3K to the losing cause of Christ Church-Accokeek before its rebellious rector could be dragged out of the parish (and soon left the church for the splinter Episcopal Church of Christ the King).
The scariest element of the AAC and IRD is the Ahmanson influence, particularly in view of the private correspondence I obtained where the AAC directors were agreeing to do whatever is necessary to win over Ahmanson, including allowing him private access to its inner-most activities, just to get into his deep pockets.
He is an ultra-conservative heir to a savings and loan fortune who has long supported religious right extremists and fundamentalist Christian causes, including so-called Christian Reconstructionism ..."
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~lcrew/dojustice/j111.html
Rowan Williams has started a Covenant Design Group, to design a Covenant for the Anglican Communion. Dr Ephraim Radner is one of the members, and he is a board member of the IRD. He's stated (http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/?p=18372#comment-1969685):
"Yes, I am a new board member of IRD. I have great respect for the the organization, in that it was one of the first to attempt to provide views regarding church-supported political activities around the world that challenged the standard liberal claims of our mainline denominations. These views simply were not being heard within our church structures — a form of conscious and unconscious censorship that I know first hand, and that has deeply limited and wounded these churches (including the Episcopal Church’s) intellectual and moral integrity. IRD’s work in bringing attention to matters of religious freedom around the world, woefully and ignominiously ignored by American Christian denominations, has been a critically needed witness. I do not in fact agree with all of IRD’s past positions or even current ones, but I respect and co[n]tinue to respect its work and its leaders. But I have made it clear that I am my own person. I am, for instance, a Democrat who often, although not always, votes with my party, but also struggles with it for a host of reasons. I try to be responsible and critical in my political thinking and acting. Diane Knippers was a great leader and Christian, whose witness inspired me in many ways, and I am more than willing to help carry on a work she began. Obviously, one is judged by one’s associations. I am, for instance, in the same church as Jim Naughton. What are we to make of this? It is odd, and in fact sad, to the utmost that the Church of Jesus Christ has crumbled to such an extent that Mr. Naughton (along with many others on the left and the right) is more interested in political segregation as a way of exercising his ecclesial vocation than in understanding."
This is what the IRD's Anglican Action page says about the Episcopal Church (http://www.ird-renew.org/site/pp.asp?c=fvKVLfMVIsG&b=308889, accessed 3/23/07):
"...After 30 years of membership decline and over a million members lost, the Episcopal Church is desperately in need of reform and renewal. Among the issues facing the church are:
Church leaders at odds with people in the pews and the wider Anglican Communion.
Unrelenting pro-homosexual advocacy and undermining of the family by church leaders.
A House of Bishops that is divided and no longer offers moral leadership.
Seminaries that have abandoned biblical Anglican theology.
Public policy advocacy that may reflect leftist positions.
Church officials who embrace a radical feminist theology."
Yes, the social policy statements of my church are moderate to liberal. Yes, I know clergy and laypeople who are feminists. Yes, we have laypeople, clergy, and bishops who are staunch advocates of inclusion for the LGBT community. However, the notions that we are undermining the family or abandoning "biblical Anglican theology" are ludicrous. They could only have come from an organization on the far right.
I only recently became aware of Dr Radner's association with the IRD. I had previously known that he was a conservative, but had thought he was one of the more moderate conservatives, especially because he was willing to condemn the anti-gay legislation that Peter Akinola supports. My opinion of him has now dropped considerably.
Diane Knippers, who recently died of cancer, was no "great leader and Christian." She made several ludicrous statements, such as: "There has been a concerted effort to portray homosexual men and women as oppressed. And, in a way, I do believe that they are victimized and trapped by their sexual desires and actions. The good news of the gospel is indeed liberation from this. But the Episcopal Church is overlooking the actual victims of the sexual revolution. From our positions of comfort and privilege, we are blind to the suffering from massive family breakdown endured by racial minorities, the poor, and children." Steven Martin, a United Methodist pastor and a self-described "theological conservative", describes the IRD as a real cancer" on the United Methodist Church.
The IRD claims to advocate for religious liberty, but Mr Taylor, the private investigator cited above, found that in 2001, the amount that the IRD spent on trying to corrupt the social witness of the UMC was 3.5 times what it spent on promoting religious liberty. The IRD has also opposed liberation theology, and was a vicious advocate of the Reagan Administration's criminal policies in Central America. Howard Ahmanson, one of their primary backers, has said that he thinks it's no longer essential to stone gays: "I think what upsets people is that Rushdoony seemed to think - and I'm not sure about this - that a godly society would stone people for the same thing that people in ancient Israel were stoned. I no longer consider that essential."
We need to worry that conservatives of good faith have an equal place at the table. However, the IRD is not an organization of conservatives of good faith. It must not be allowed to corrupt our social witness.
Friday, March 23, 2007
Newsflash: Iran seizes 15 UK servicepeople
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-03-23T175657Z_01_COL331821_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-IRAN-BRITAIN-COL.XML
By Aref Mohammed for Reuters
BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - Iranian forces seized 15 British servicemen on Friday in the mouth of the waterway that separates Iran and Iraq, triggering a diplomatic crisis at a time of heightened tensions over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Britain said two boatloads of sailors and marines from the naval frigate Cornwall had searched a merchant vessel in Iraqi waters on a U.N. approved mission when Iranian gunboats encircled and captured them.
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said she was "extremely disturbed." Britain summoned Iran's ambassador in London and protested through its embassy in Tehran.
"We sought a full explanation of what happened and left the Iranian authorities in no doubt that we expect immediate and safe return of our service personnel and boats," Beckett said.
Washington backed its ally. "We support the British demand for the safe return of their people and equipment," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Tehran maintained silence throughout the day. The incident sent oil prices up more than one percent to a three-month high.
It took place a day after Iran launched a week of naval war games along its coast, including the Gulf's northern reaches which give access to the oil output of Iraq, Iran and Kuwait.
"There was no fighting, no engagement of weapons, anything like that, it was entirely peaceful," said Commodore Nick Lambert, commander of the British fleet in the area.
"We have been assured from the scant communication we have had with the Iranians at a tactical level that the 15 people are safely in their hands," he said aboard the Cornwall.
"MISUNDERSTANDING"
British officials were wary of drawing the conclusion that the incident was a deliberate provocation by Tehran.
"This may well be a misunderstanding. We're certainly treating it as such at the moment. We're looking for the mistake to be corrected," a British government source said.
Unlike the United States, Britain has diplomatic relations with Iran. But London backs Washington's calls for tough sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.
The U.N. Security Council is due to vote on Saturday on new sanctions against Iran for refusing to halt enrichment of uranium, which Western countries say could be used for weapons and which Tehran says is for power. London and Washington also say Iran foments violence in Iraq.
An Iraqi fisherman in Basra, who asked not to be named, told Reuters he had seen the incident near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway that separates Iraq from Iran.
He said Western military personnel in two small boats had boarded a ship. At least two Iranian vessels appeared on the scene and detained them.
British Royal Navy personnel include both sailors and marines, who make up boarding parties for ship searches as part of a mission that includes the U.S. and Australian navies. Washington said no U.S. military personnel were involved.
The incident was similar to one in 2004 in which eight British servicemen spent three nights in the hands of Iranian Revolutionary Guards before being released unharmed.
In that incident, the Iranians accused them of crossing into Iranian waters, which Britain disputed.
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-03-23T175657Z_01_COL331821_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-IRAQ-IRAN-BRITAIN-COL.XML
By Aref Mohammed for Reuters
BASRA, Iraq (Reuters) - Iranian forces seized 15 British servicemen on Friday in the mouth of the waterway that separates Iran and Iraq, triggering a diplomatic crisis at a time of heightened tensions over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Britain said two boatloads of sailors and marines from the naval frigate Cornwall had searched a merchant vessel in Iraqi waters on a U.N. approved mission when Iranian gunboats encircled and captured them.
British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett said she was "extremely disturbed." Britain summoned Iran's ambassador in London and protested through its embassy in Tehran.
"We sought a full explanation of what happened and left the Iranian authorities in no doubt that we expect immediate and safe return of our service personnel and boats," Beckett said.
Washington backed its ally. "We support the British demand for the safe return of their people and equipment," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.
Tehran maintained silence throughout the day. The incident sent oil prices up more than one percent to a three-month high.
It took place a day after Iran launched a week of naval war games along its coast, including the Gulf's northern reaches which give access to the oil output of Iraq, Iran and Kuwait.
"There was no fighting, no engagement of weapons, anything like that, it was entirely peaceful," said Commodore Nick Lambert, commander of the British fleet in the area.
"We have been assured from the scant communication we have had with the Iranians at a tactical level that the 15 people are safely in their hands," he said aboard the Cornwall.
"MISUNDERSTANDING"
British officials were wary of drawing the conclusion that the incident was a deliberate provocation by Tehran.
"This may well be a misunderstanding. We're certainly treating it as such at the moment. We're looking for the mistake to be corrected," a British government source said.
Unlike the United States, Britain has diplomatic relations with Iran. But London backs Washington's calls for tough sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.
The U.N. Security Council is due to vote on Saturday on new sanctions against Iran for refusing to halt enrichment of uranium, which Western countries say could be used for weapons and which Tehran says is for power. London and Washington also say Iran foments violence in Iraq.
An Iraqi fisherman in Basra, who asked not to be named, told Reuters he had seen the incident near the mouth of the Shatt al-Arab waterway that separates Iraq from Iran.
He said Western military personnel in two small boats had boarded a ship. At least two Iranian vessels appeared on the scene and detained them.
British Royal Navy personnel include both sailors and marines, who make up boarding parties for ship searches as part of a mission that includes the U.S. and Australian navies. Washington said no U.S. military personnel were involved.
The incident was similar to one in 2004 in which eight British servicemen spent three nights in the hands of Iranian Revolutionary Guards before being released unharmed.
In that incident, the Iranians accused them of crossing into Iranian waters, which Britain disputed.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Plotting the destruction of the Episcopal Church
I know the headline sounds a little lurid, but I'd like to remind my Anglican readers that there are, frankly, people who seek our destruction. In this letter, dated Dec 28, 2003, a member of the American Anglican Council details plans to bring about a body that would replace the Episcopal Church as the legitimate expression of Anglicanism in the United States. This is after the 2003 General Convention, where we consented to the election of Gene Robinson, the (gasp!!) gay bishop of New Hampshire.
The American Anglican Council describes themselves as "individuals, parishes and ministries who affirm Biblical authority and Christian orthodoxy within the Anglican Communion." They are "working to build a faithful Anglican witness in the Americas." There may be some evidence of a connection between the AAC and the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a conservative body that is monitoring the United Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal churches in the US. They claim that they are "an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians, working to reform their churches' social witness, in accord with biblical and historic teachings, thereby contributing to the renewal of democratic society at home and abroad."
They are wrong, and I'll post about this later. But first, here's the letter.
Dear Friends,
I am Geoff Chapman, Rector of St Stephens Church in Sewickley, Pa. (Diocese of Pittsburgh). I am responding to you on behalf of the American Anglican Council and their Bishops’ Committee on Adequate Episcopal Oversight (AEO). Thanks for contacting us; we very much want to network with you in these difficult times and be of real help to you.
The AAC Strategy Committee has been working for months on AEO. In consultation with a wide circle of friends - inside this country and beyond - we have clarified our strategy and are now moving to implement it. I am serving as their response person for AEO, and I want to brief you on our progress. This document will get you up to speed on where we are going. Please keep this document confidential, sharing it in hard copy (printed format) only with people you fully trust, and do not pass it on electronically to anyone under any circumstances.
1) Our ultimate goal is a realignment of Anglicanism on North American soil committed to biblical faith and values, and driven by Gospel mission. We believe in the end this should be a “replacement” jurisdiction with confessional standards, maintaining the historic faith of our Communion, closely aligned with the majority of world Anglicanism, emerging from the disastrous actions of General Convention (2003). We believe this goal is now pressed upon us by the Holy Spirit as a result of the rejection of the historic Christian faith and the rejection of biblical and Communion authority by the leadership of ECUSA. We will lead our congregations and partners in making the adjustment to adopt this strategy. We seek to retain ownership of our property as we move into this realignment.
2) As an intermediate step, we will respond to the urgent pastoral need in our country by offering Adequate Episcopal Oversight to parishes or remnants of parishes who share our deeply held convictions, proceeding under the guidance of our Bishops and the Primates. Bp Griswold’s offer of “Extended Episcopal Care” is unacceptable, fundamentally flawed and disingenuous, and does not meet the needs of our parishes or the intentions of the Primates. Our AEO will maintain confidentiality in the application process, and seek transfer of Parish oversight across geographic diocesan boundaries to an orthodox bishop, the right of pastoral succession, liberty of conscience In financial stewardship (the right to “redirect” funds), and negotiated property settlements affirming the retention of ownership in the local congregation.
The implementation of Adequate Episcopal Oversight will normally follow a two-step, “Stage 1 Then Stage 2” process.
Stage 1 will feature “spiritual realignment” while remaining within the letter of current canons. Parishes would publicly announce that their relationship with their diocesan Bishop is “severely damaged” because of the events of the summer, and that they are now looking to one of the Primates or an AAC orthodox Bishop for their “primary pastoral leadership”. Announcements will need to be carefully phrased to avoid canonical violations.
During the months of Stage 1, we will begin to reform our relationships to build the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. We will move to initiate support structures for fellowship and strategy, We will act courageously and faithfully to support “at risk” parishes. We will creatively redirect finances. We will refocus on Gospel initiatives. We will innovatively move around, beyond or within the canons to “act like the church God is making us”. Stage 1 will enable congregations/clusters to keep clear use of their buildings for the foreseeable future, and would give critical time to strengthen our leadership circles for what promises to be a turbulent spiritual season.
Stage 2 will launch at some yet to be determined moment, probably in 2004. During this phase, we will seek, under the guidance of the Primates, negotiated settlements in matters of property, jurisdiction, pastoral succession and communion, If adequate settlements are not within reach, a faithful disobedience of canon law on a widespread basis may be necessary.
Some congregations have already proceeded to “Stage 2” because of local circumstances. While we cannot offer AEO under an AAC diocesan Bishop at this time, we do have non-geographical oversight available from “offshore” Bishops, and retired Bishops. We may also be able to offer oversight from special designated priests acting on behalf of our AAC Diocesan Bishops.
3) Our local strategy for developing AEO will have to keep our goal and current hostile circumstances in mind. We call it a “cluster strategy”, and it will closely sync with the establishment and spread of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. We are developing clusters of churches (3-30 churches per cluster) in 15-30 varying dioceses. These churches would join the Network and apply for AEO whenever possible as diocesan clusters. When they are prepared, we will sequence public announcements of their intentions to realign in successive weeks to build impact. These churches will need Clergy and Vestries who are unified, well networked, and ready for a season of conflict if necessary.
Smaller, isolated congregations that cannot connect with a supporting cluster will be welcome to apply, but encouraged to make a public announcement later in 2004. They will sail in the wake of the leadership of stronger clusters.
Parishes/clusters that go through this process in a “Stage 2” mode and Bishops who receive such parishes/clusters will be at risk of litigation and presentment, and should be prepared for such.
An AAC Bishop could be available to go with any parish/cluster to meet with the diocesan Bp, as needed. We think the presence of an AAC Bishop with a stated partnership with the Primates could change the dynamics of such a meeting.
This “Stage 1, Stage 2, Cluster Strategy” has several advantages: It will…
(1) build “rising orthodox network” DNA among the networked churches. Churches in the clusters would gain formative experiences of working together, depending upon each other, praying together, linking with the Global South, and if need be, suffering together. This would be invaluable for the months and years ahead.
(2) give us our best shot at a success. Any isolated parish that moves alone into the revisionist line of fire at this point is going to be in peril. Congregations moving in clusters have the advantage of leveraging their combined strength.
(3) generate significant public attention both within this country and among our world-wide partners.
(4) build “position” for any settlement talks in the future.
4) We are building a network of “Cluster Moderators” who will serve emerging clusters as they gather. These leaders should have a servant’s heart and a broad base of support in their own parishes that will enable them to come alongside conflicted or imperiled congregations. They must be able to bridge the lines of our coalition with genuine respect for the differences within the orthodox community. We will identify these key leaders as soon as possible.
5) We would cover everything in intentional, dependent Christ-centered prayer, seeking the Holy Spirit’s leading and provision at every point, Prayer support cells will be developed around the country and mobilized at critical moments.
Here are some “Frequently Asked Questions” :
1) What does it take to apply for AEO (Adequate Episcopal Oversight)? Normally we would ask for the signature of the Rector and a supporting vote of the Vestry. When you have reached this point of decision, send the application to the AAC office. There is no need to inform your Bishop yet of the application. We will inform him with you in due time. You can find the application and guidelines here:
http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=827&c=21
2) Does AEO mean that the orthodox overseeing Bishop would have control of the call, licensing, and canonical residence of the clergy? We do not know the answers to that, but our Bishops will be exploring these issues as we move forward. The AAC bishops are not prepared to sign off on an arrangement that will leave a congregation in continuing high risk, and that means that issues of spiritual authority, pastoral succession and episcopal oversight must be solved, That Is the fundamental difference between Adequate Episcopal “Oversight” envisioned by Canterbury and the Primates and the Episcopal “Care” offered by Griswold. However, there are many details yet to be ironed out.
3) What legal liabilities would you face if you wanted to leave your current diocese? Recent litigation indicates that the local diocesan authorities hold almost all the cards in property disputes and clergy placement if they want to play “hardball”.
But we think that the political realities are such that American revisionist bishops will be reticent to play “hardball” for a while. They have just handed the gay lobby a stunning victory, but are being forced to pay a fearsome price for it. The opposition at home is far greater than they anticipated and the opposition overseas is serious and inflamed. ECUSA will certainly lose members and funds at a high rate over the next months, accelerating their decline. In one short summer they have managed to radicalize all the orthodox in our communion and take away the “middle ground” where so many of our members have hidden! This has put many (perhaps even most) parishes in conflict and made the survival of many smaller parishes a large and urgent question. No one is very happy about this inside ECUSA, and the American public is hardly cheering the events in New Hampshire.
ECUSA leaders know well how conservatives could quickly become the “victims” in the public mind. They also know that all of our AEO work will eventually find its way across the desk of the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC). All of this together will create pressure for them to cooperate with the ABC/Primate’s call for AEO. So we suspect that there will be a window of time before they return to “hardball” tactics.
The AAC has a new “Legal Resources” link on their home page, and if you or your new Vestry need help in this area, we would suggest contacting them.
http://www.americananglican.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=47
4) Can we redirect our funds? This is happening on a widespread basis. There are several strategies to consider. Some parishes have used “donor intent” to trump diocesan canon. The argument goes something like this… “In these conflicted times we will offer our congregation pledge forms with options to indicate their preferred use of their funds. The options go… “Would you like to have a canonical portion of your gift sent (1) to the Diocese? (2) To the National Church? Or (3) To the Vestry for their judgment on whether to pass on funds to the Diocese or National Church? All redirected funds will go to Anglican missions who are committed to biblical faith, values and Gospel ministry?
The Vestry then informs the Diocese that they feel it important to allow their members to follow their conscience. Arguing for “freedom of conscience” and the honoring of “donor intent” is very difficult for liberals to oppose, regardless of the strength of your state law. And it should give your parish some breathing room as you seek to move through this difficult season together.
For a biblical/theological understanding of redirecting funds, look at John Guernsey’s talk from the Dallas Conference. You can find it here:
http://americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=784&c=21
5) What is important over the next months? Here are some concrete suggestions for your consideration:
a. Join the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. Here’s some basic information:
http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=920&c=21
Look to the AAC website for updates.
b. Form diocesan “clusters” with sympathetic churches. This is essential. An AAC chapter can be the seedbed for a cluster that is seeking realignment. Circle up, pick a moderator, and contact us at AAC headquarters.
c. Be careful of your language. Don’t declare yourself “out of communion” with your diocesan Bishop as such statements have been used as evidence for canonical action against clergy (“abandonment of communion” in Philadelphia). To say that your communion is “impaired” or “damaged” is a wiser response for the moment. Let the excommunications come from the Primates.
d. Prioritize your issues and pursue them in due order. Sort out the challenges you face and go after the most important first, while saving the least important till last. The issues you face could include securing new leadership, consolidating and educating your Vestry, building a network of support within your Diocese, stabilizing your, congregation, etc. Take first things first. Operate in God’s time. Don’t be stampeded to early and untimely actions. The Primates will move over the next months to build a growing and determined solution to the crisis. It will be good to follow their lead and that of the AAC Bishops.
e. Be measured, deliberate and courageous in your responses, “Wise as serpents and gentle as doves was Jesus’ phrase for it! This is a moment for courageous and clear leadership. Watch out for the spirit of anger or self-righteousness! It will kill fractured parishes.
f. Join and build the network of churches committed to biblical values and faith. There will be safety in numbers. See if there are other parishes in your diocese who could also apply for AEO. Work in partnership with us in the AAC. Either we hang together or we hang separately! And don’t forget (when it seems like you are all alone) that Christ himself has promised to walk with us through these times!
g. Familiarize yourself with the strategy affirmed in Dallas in October and talk and pray about how you can apply it locally. It can be found here:
http://www.americananglican.org/petitions/Petition.cfm?petitionID=8
h. Keeping close to Christ is essential. Read your Bible. Pray lots. Be aware of Satan’s opposition and resist him. Worship regularly. Stay in good fellowship with close Christian friends. Watch out for your own emotions, especially anger and frustration, and remember that the Holy Spirit’s leading is not the same as your emotions! We will be of no use to the Lord Jesus in these struggles if we are not fully His!
i. Remember confidentiality! Much is at stake over these next months. The careers of godly men and women, the possibility of congregational survival, the Anglican witness to Christ in our culture and generation, etc. We ask you not to spread these emails over the internet, and to speak of them only to people you trust. In the end, everything will be spoken plainly, but the ability to get organize and take counsel together effectively depends upon our readiness to keep confidentiality.
Here are some Internet resources that might be of value in keeping you informed…
A site in Great Britain: “Crisis 2003”
http://london2003.anglican.tk/
Kendall Harmon’s excellent web site
http://titusonenine.blogspot.com/
David Virtue’s web page with a wide ranging collection of news stories
http://listserv.episcopalian.org/archives/virtuosity.html
The American Anglican Council
http://www.americananglican.org/News/NewsList.cfm?c=21&num=1000The AAC Legal Resources page
http://www.americananglican.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=47
The AAC Dallas Strategy affirmed by over 2300 people
http://www.americananglican.org/petitions/Petition.cfm?petitionID=8
Guidelines and Application for the AAC’s Adequate Episcopal Oversight
http://americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=827&c=21
We will keep all details of our contact with parishes in confidence. Please do not hesitate to keep in touch with me or with the AAC office if we can be of further help. God bless you, as you courageously serve Christ and his gospel.
Here is my contact information…
Geoffrey W. Chapman
Rector, St Stephens Sewickley, Pa
xxxxxxxxxxxxx (work)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (cell)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Originally posted on Thinking Anglicans:
Link
I know the headline sounds a little lurid, but I'd like to remind my Anglican readers that there are, frankly, people who seek our destruction. In this letter, dated Dec 28, 2003, a member of the American Anglican Council details plans to bring about a body that would replace the Episcopal Church as the legitimate expression of Anglicanism in the United States. This is after the 2003 General Convention, where we consented to the election of Gene Robinson, the (gasp!!) gay bishop of New Hampshire.
The American Anglican Council describes themselves as "individuals, parishes and ministries who affirm Biblical authority and Christian orthodoxy within the Anglican Communion." They are "working to build a faithful Anglican witness in the Americas." There may be some evidence of a connection between the AAC and the Institute on Religion and Democracy, a conservative body that is monitoring the United Methodist, Presbyterian, and Episcopal churches in the US. They claim that they are "an ecumenical alliance of U.S. Christians, working to reform their churches' social witness, in accord with biblical and historic teachings, thereby contributing to the renewal of democratic society at home and abroad."
They are wrong, and I'll post about this later. But first, here's the letter.
Dear Friends,
I am Geoff Chapman, Rector of St Stephens Church in Sewickley, Pa. (Diocese of Pittsburgh). I am responding to you on behalf of the American Anglican Council and their Bishops’ Committee on Adequate Episcopal Oversight (AEO). Thanks for contacting us; we very much want to network with you in these difficult times and be of real help to you.
The AAC Strategy Committee has been working for months on AEO. In consultation with a wide circle of friends - inside this country and beyond - we have clarified our strategy and are now moving to implement it. I am serving as their response person for AEO, and I want to brief you on our progress. This document will get you up to speed on where we are going. Please keep this document confidential, sharing it in hard copy (printed format) only with people you fully trust, and do not pass it on electronically to anyone under any circumstances.
1) Our ultimate goal is a realignment of Anglicanism on North American soil committed to biblical faith and values, and driven by Gospel mission. We believe in the end this should be a “replacement” jurisdiction with confessional standards, maintaining the historic faith of our Communion, closely aligned with the majority of world Anglicanism, emerging from the disastrous actions of General Convention (2003). We believe this goal is now pressed upon us by the Holy Spirit as a result of the rejection of the historic Christian faith and the rejection of biblical and Communion authority by the leadership of ECUSA. We will lead our congregations and partners in making the adjustment to adopt this strategy. We seek to retain ownership of our property as we move into this realignment.
2) As an intermediate step, we will respond to the urgent pastoral need in our country by offering Adequate Episcopal Oversight to parishes or remnants of parishes who share our deeply held convictions, proceeding under the guidance of our Bishops and the Primates. Bp Griswold’s offer of “Extended Episcopal Care” is unacceptable, fundamentally flawed and disingenuous, and does not meet the needs of our parishes or the intentions of the Primates. Our AEO will maintain confidentiality in the application process, and seek transfer of Parish oversight across geographic diocesan boundaries to an orthodox bishop, the right of pastoral succession, liberty of conscience In financial stewardship (the right to “redirect” funds), and negotiated property settlements affirming the retention of ownership in the local congregation.
The implementation of Adequate Episcopal Oversight will normally follow a two-step, “Stage 1 Then Stage 2” process.
Stage 1 will feature “spiritual realignment” while remaining within the letter of current canons. Parishes would publicly announce that their relationship with their diocesan Bishop is “severely damaged” because of the events of the summer, and that they are now looking to one of the Primates or an AAC orthodox Bishop for their “primary pastoral leadership”. Announcements will need to be carefully phrased to avoid canonical violations.
During the months of Stage 1, we will begin to reform our relationships to build the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. We will move to initiate support structures for fellowship and strategy, We will act courageously and faithfully to support “at risk” parishes. We will creatively redirect finances. We will refocus on Gospel initiatives. We will innovatively move around, beyond or within the canons to “act like the church God is making us”. Stage 1 will enable congregations/clusters to keep clear use of their buildings for the foreseeable future, and would give critical time to strengthen our leadership circles for what promises to be a turbulent spiritual season.
Stage 2 will launch at some yet to be determined moment, probably in 2004. During this phase, we will seek, under the guidance of the Primates, negotiated settlements in matters of property, jurisdiction, pastoral succession and communion, If adequate settlements are not within reach, a faithful disobedience of canon law on a widespread basis may be necessary.
Some congregations have already proceeded to “Stage 2” because of local circumstances. While we cannot offer AEO under an AAC diocesan Bishop at this time, we do have non-geographical oversight available from “offshore” Bishops, and retired Bishops. We may also be able to offer oversight from special designated priests acting on behalf of our AAC Diocesan Bishops.
3) Our local strategy for developing AEO will have to keep our goal and current hostile circumstances in mind. We call it a “cluster strategy”, and it will closely sync with the establishment and spread of the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. We are developing clusters of churches (3-30 churches per cluster) in 15-30 varying dioceses. These churches would join the Network and apply for AEO whenever possible as diocesan clusters. When they are prepared, we will sequence public announcements of their intentions to realign in successive weeks to build impact. These churches will need Clergy and Vestries who are unified, well networked, and ready for a season of conflict if necessary.
Smaller, isolated congregations that cannot connect with a supporting cluster will be welcome to apply, but encouraged to make a public announcement later in 2004. They will sail in the wake of the leadership of stronger clusters.
Parishes/clusters that go through this process in a “Stage 2” mode and Bishops who receive such parishes/clusters will be at risk of litigation and presentment, and should be prepared for such.
An AAC Bishop could be available to go with any parish/cluster to meet with the diocesan Bp, as needed. We think the presence of an AAC Bishop with a stated partnership with the Primates could change the dynamics of such a meeting.
This “Stage 1, Stage 2, Cluster Strategy” has several advantages: It will…
(1) build “rising orthodox network” DNA among the networked churches. Churches in the clusters would gain formative experiences of working together, depending upon each other, praying together, linking with the Global South, and if need be, suffering together. This would be invaluable for the months and years ahead.
(2) give us our best shot at a success. Any isolated parish that moves alone into the revisionist line of fire at this point is going to be in peril. Congregations moving in clusters have the advantage of leveraging their combined strength.
(3) generate significant public attention both within this country and among our world-wide partners.
(4) build “position” for any settlement talks in the future.
4) We are building a network of “Cluster Moderators” who will serve emerging clusters as they gather. These leaders should have a servant’s heart and a broad base of support in their own parishes that will enable them to come alongside conflicted or imperiled congregations. They must be able to bridge the lines of our coalition with genuine respect for the differences within the orthodox community. We will identify these key leaders as soon as possible.
5) We would cover everything in intentional, dependent Christ-centered prayer, seeking the Holy Spirit’s leading and provision at every point, Prayer support cells will be developed around the country and mobilized at critical moments.
Here are some “Frequently Asked Questions” :
1) What does it take to apply for AEO (Adequate Episcopal Oversight)? Normally we would ask for the signature of the Rector and a supporting vote of the Vestry. When you have reached this point of decision, send the application to the AAC office. There is no need to inform your Bishop yet of the application. We will inform him with you in due time. You can find the application and guidelines here:
http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=827&c=21
2) Does AEO mean that the orthodox overseeing Bishop would have control of the call, licensing, and canonical residence of the clergy? We do not know the answers to that, but our Bishops will be exploring these issues as we move forward. The AAC bishops are not prepared to sign off on an arrangement that will leave a congregation in continuing high risk, and that means that issues of spiritual authority, pastoral succession and episcopal oversight must be solved, That Is the fundamental difference between Adequate Episcopal “Oversight” envisioned by Canterbury and the Primates and the Episcopal “Care” offered by Griswold. However, there are many details yet to be ironed out.
3) What legal liabilities would you face if you wanted to leave your current diocese? Recent litigation indicates that the local diocesan authorities hold almost all the cards in property disputes and clergy placement if they want to play “hardball”.
But we think that the political realities are such that American revisionist bishops will be reticent to play “hardball” for a while. They have just handed the gay lobby a stunning victory, but are being forced to pay a fearsome price for it. The opposition at home is far greater than they anticipated and the opposition overseas is serious and inflamed. ECUSA will certainly lose members and funds at a high rate over the next months, accelerating their decline. In one short summer they have managed to radicalize all the orthodox in our communion and take away the “middle ground” where so many of our members have hidden! This has put many (perhaps even most) parishes in conflict and made the survival of many smaller parishes a large and urgent question. No one is very happy about this inside ECUSA, and the American public is hardly cheering the events in New Hampshire.
ECUSA leaders know well how conservatives could quickly become the “victims” in the public mind. They also know that all of our AEO work will eventually find its way across the desk of the Archbishop of Canterbury (ABC). All of this together will create pressure for them to cooperate with the ABC/Primate’s call for AEO. So we suspect that there will be a window of time before they return to “hardball” tactics.
The AAC has a new “Legal Resources” link on their home page, and if you or your new Vestry need help in this area, we would suggest contacting them.
http://www.americananglican.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=47
4) Can we redirect our funds? This is happening on a widespread basis. There are several strategies to consider. Some parishes have used “donor intent” to trump diocesan canon. The argument goes something like this… “In these conflicted times we will offer our congregation pledge forms with options to indicate their preferred use of their funds. The options go… “Would you like to have a canonical portion of your gift sent (1) to the Diocese? (2) To the National Church? Or (3) To the Vestry for their judgment on whether to pass on funds to the Diocese or National Church? All redirected funds will go to Anglican missions who are committed to biblical faith, values and Gospel ministry?
The Vestry then informs the Diocese that they feel it important to allow their members to follow their conscience. Arguing for “freedom of conscience” and the honoring of “donor intent” is very difficult for liberals to oppose, regardless of the strength of your state law. And it should give your parish some breathing room as you seek to move through this difficult season together.
For a biblical/theological understanding of redirecting funds, look at John Guernsey’s talk from the Dallas Conference. You can find it here:
http://americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=784&c=21
5) What is important over the next months? Here are some concrete suggestions for your consideration:
a. Join the Network of Anglican Communion Dioceses and Parishes. Here’s some basic information:
http://www.americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=920&c=21
Look to the AAC website for updates.
b. Form diocesan “clusters” with sympathetic churches. This is essential. An AAC chapter can be the seedbed for a cluster that is seeking realignment. Circle up, pick a moderator, and contact us at AAC headquarters.
c. Be careful of your language. Don’t declare yourself “out of communion” with your diocesan Bishop as such statements have been used as evidence for canonical action against clergy (“abandonment of communion” in Philadelphia). To say that your communion is “impaired” or “damaged” is a wiser response for the moment. Let the excommunications come from the Primates.
d. Prioritize your issues and pursue them in due order. Sort out the challenges you face and go after the most important first, while saving the least important till last. The issues you face could include securing new leadership, consolidating and educating your Vestry, building a network of support within your Diocese, stabilizing your, congregation, etc. Take first things first. Operate in God’s time. Don’t be stampeded to early and untimely actions. The Primates will move over the next months to build a growing and determined solution to the crisis. It will be good to follow their lead and that of the AAC Bishops.
e. Be measured, deliberate and courageous in your responses, “Wise as serpents and gentle as doves was Jesus’ phrase for it! This is a moment for courageous and clear leadership. Watch out for the spirit of anger or self-righteousness! It will kill fractured parishes.
f. Join and build the network of churches committed to biblical values and faith. There will be safety in numbers. See if there are other parishes in your diocese who could also apply for AEO. Work in partnership with us in the AAC. Either we hang together or we hang separately! And don’t forget (when it seems like you are all alone) that Christ himself has promised to walk with us through these times!
g. Familiarize yourself with the strategy affirmed in Dallas in October and talk and pray about how you can apply it locally. It can be found here:
http://www.americananglican.org/petitions/Petition.cfm?petitionID=8
h. Keeping close to Christ is essential. Read your Bible. Pray lots. Be aware of Satan’s opposition and resist him. Worship regularly. Stay in good fellowship with close Christian friends. Watch out for your own emotions, especially anger and frustration, and remember that the Holy Spirit’s leading is not the same as your emotions! We will be of no use to the Lord Jesus in these struggles if we are not fully His!
i. Remember confidentiality! Much is at stake over these next months. The careers of godly men and women, the possibility of congregational survival, the Anglican witness to Christ in our culture and generation, etc. We ask you not to spread these emails over the internet, and to speak of them only to people you trust. In the end, everything will be spoken plainly, but the ability to get organize and take counsel together effectively depends upon our readiness to keep confidentiality.
Here are some Internet resources that might be of value in keeping you informed…
A site in Great Britain: “Crisis 2003”
http://london2003.anglican.tk/
Kendall Harmon’s excellent web site
http://titusonenine.blogspot.com/
David Virtue’s web page with a wide ranging collection of news stories
http://listserv.episcopalian.org/archives/virtuosity.html
The American Anglican Council
http://www.americananglican.org/News/NewsList.cfm?c=21&num=1000The AAC Legal Resources page
http://www.americananglican.org/Issues/IssuesList.cfm?c=47
The AAC Dallas Strategy affirmed by over 2300 people
http://www.americananglican.org/petitions/Petition.cfm?petitionID=8
Guidelines and Application for the AAC’s Adequate Episcopal Oversight
http://americananglican.org/News/News.cfm?ID=827&c=21
We will keep all details of our contact with parishes in confidence. Please do not hesitate to keep in touch with me or with the AAC office if we can be of further help. God bless you, as you courageously serve Christ and his gospel.
Here is my contact information…
Geoffrey W. Chapman
Rector, St Stephens Sewickley, Pa
xxxxxxxxxxxxx (work)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (cell)
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Originally posted on Thinking Anglicans:
Link
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Anglican Communion news: Episcopal Church House of Bishops rejects one of Primates' demands
The House of Bishops, meeting in Texas, was expected to deliberate. However, they have issued a clear response to one of the demands of the Anglican Primates, that we implement a pastoral scheme for dioceses in the Episcopal Church that feel they cannot remain part of the church. The scheme would have involved foreign Primates. Our House of Bishops rejected this scheme, describing it as injurious. Their statements are below.
Link
Our Bishops spoke of a desire to remain "part of the councils of the Anglican Communion." The Archbishop of Nigeria, as well as his followers, is likely to do all he can to stop this from happening. I have no idea what the Archbishop of Canterbury will do; I think he will reduce our participation at the very least. I think that the Episcopal Church should be willing to live with this consequence.
Our Bishops also spoke of other relationships in the Communion, saying, "Indeed, we will seek to live fully into, and deepen, our relationships with our brothers and sisters in the Communion through companion relationships, the networks of Anglican women, the Anglican Indigenous Network, the Francophone Network, our support for the Anglican Diocese of Cuba, our existing covenant commitments with other provinces and dioceses, including Liberia, Mexico, Central America, Brazil, and the Philippines, our work as The Episcopal Church in many countries around the world, especially in the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe, and Taiwan, and countless informal relationships for mission around the world." This is very good; it reminds us that we are not just one church in isolation.
They also said, "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."
For those of us in the know, this statement was obviously aimed at Peter Akinola's support of the odious Same Sex Marriage Prevention Act in Nigeria. However, I do not believe it is clear enough. We should have mentioned Akinola by name, and the legislation by name. In May 2006, the bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada did so. (http://www.anglicanjournal.com/news-update/100/article/bishops-speak-out-against-nigerian-laws-on-homosexuality/)
We should name the perpertrators to make the rest of the Anglican Communion aware of this issue. I can only assume that Peter Akinola does not realize that he will be causing harm to LGBT Nigerians, and that the same goes of the other Global South Primates who have allied with him and who have not spoken out to our knowledge. The antidote to ignorance is plain speech, not oblique references.
The alternative is to assume that Peter Akinola is malicious, and does deliberately intend to do violence - this is not an assumption I am willing to make lightly of a Christian. If the case, then we need to confront that violence, directly and in plain speech.
And, how will an outside observer know what we're talking about if she reads the statement? How will LGBT Nigerians, already persecuted by their own Primate, know that we're really on their side?
Additionally, our Bishops say that the proposal "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." This reference to colonialism is iffy. I don't think the Church of England has ever had power over the Episcopal Church - we were started around the Revolutionary War, and we didn't call ourselves the Anglican Church to distinguish ourselves from the Brits (and to avoid lynchings). Certainly, no one exercises power over us now. I mention this because I don't want to unnecessarily offend Global South Anglicans, and they might legitimately ask, who are we to talk about colonialism?
Finally, on the liberal blogs in the Episcopal Church, some are crowing about how we've finally developed the courage to stand up to the ultraconservatives. This is no time to crow, or to celebrate anything. Our Bishops hope that we now 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)." This is what we need to do. Perhaps we should only celebrate when LGBT Nigerians are safe from persecution - that would be when Nigeria's main "sodomy" law is repealed.
The House of Bishops, meeting in Texas, was expected to deliberate. However, they have issued a clear response to one of the demands of the Anglican Primates, that we implement a pastoral scheme for dioceses in the Episcopal Church that feel they cannot remain part of the church. The scheme would have involved foreign Primates. Our House of Bishops rejected this scheme, describing it as injurious. Their statements are below.
Link
Our Bishops spoke of a desire to remain "part of the councils of the Anglican Communion." The Archbishop of Nigeria, as well as his followers, is likely to do all he can to stop this from happening. I have no idea what the Archbishop of Canterbury will do; I think he will reduce our participation at the very least. I think that the Episcopal Church should be willing to live with this consequence.
Our Bishops also spoke of other relationships in the Communion, saying, "Indeed, we will seek to live fully into, and deepen, our relationships with our brothers and sisters in the Communion through companion relationships, the networks of Anglican women, the Anglican Indigenous Network, the Francophone Network, our support for the Anglican Diocese of Cuba, our existing covenant commitments with other provinces and dioceses, including Liberia, Mexico, Central America, Brazil, and the Philippines, our work as The Episcopal Church in many countries around the world, especially in the Caribbean, Latin America, Europe, and Taiwan, and countless informal relationships for mission around the world." This is very good; it reminds us that we are not just one church in isolation.
They also said, "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."
For those of us in the know, this statement was obviously aimed at Peter Akinola's support of the odious Same Sex Marriage Prevention Act in Nigeria. However, I do not believe it is clear enough. We should have mentioned Akinola by name, and the legislation by name. In May 2006, the bishops of the Anglican Church of Canada did so. (http://www.anglicanjournal.com/news-update/100/article/bishops-speak-out-against-nigerian-laws-on-homosexuality/)
We should name the perpertrators to make the rest of the Anglican Communion aware of this issue. I can only assume that Peter Akinola does not realize that he will be causing harm to LGBT Nigerians, and that the same goes of the other Global South Primates who have allied with him and who have not spoken out to our knowledge. The antidote to ignorance is plain speech, not oblique references.
The alternative is to assume that Peter Akinola is malicious, and does deliberately intend to do violence - this is not an assumption I am willing to make lightly of a Christian. If the case, then we need to confront that violence, directly and in plain speech.
And, how will an outside observer know what we're talking about if she reads the statement? How will LGBT Nigerians, already persecuted by their own Primate, know that we're really on their side?
Additionally, our Bishops say that the proposal "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." This reference to colonialism is iffy. I don't think the Church of England has ever had power over the Episcopal Church - we were started around the Revolutionary War, and we didn't call ourselves the Anglican Church to distinguish ourselves from the Brits (and to avoid lynchings). Certainly, no one exercises power over us now. I mention this because I don't want to unnecessarily offend Global South Anglicans, and they might legitimately ask, who are we to talk about colonialism?
Finally, on the liberal blogs in the Episcopal Church, some are crowing about how we've finally developed the courage to stand up to the ultraconservatives. This is no time to crow, or to celebrate anything. Our Bishops hope that we now 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)." This is what we need to do. Perhaps we should only celebrate when LGBT Nigerians are safe from persecution - that would be when Nigeria's main "sodomy" law is repealed.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Global South Anglicans: Replicating Patterns of Oppression?
Sarah Dylan Bruer, an Episcopal priest in training, offers us some thoughts on a major Global South Anglican blog.
Link
The blog in question is www.globalsouthanglican.org, but it's down at the moment. Anyway, it was a collection of writings by major GS Anglican bishops and thinkers.
As Sarah points out, everyone in the above photo is male. All the faces are male, as are most (maybe all) the people whose backs are turned. From what I remember from my visits to the blog when it was running, all the posters were men. All were conservative, some highly so. Now, both Africans and Asians were represented, as was one White contributor from the US (Dr Ephraim Radner), so I commend their racial diversity.
But, these guys are NOT the only voice of Anglicans in the Global South. Half of all Global Southerners are female. Some, like me, aren't theologically conservative. I suspect that many of them would be willing to agree to disagree on homosexuality. And yet, the title of the blog of GS bishops is, Global South Anglican.
As I mentioned before, when we are oppressed, we often replicate the patterns of oppression we learned, and then inflict them on groups that we have power over. Here, it looks to me like some Global South leaders have usurped the voice that is not theirs - the voices of their women, their laity, their LGBT people. They constantly shove the issue of homosexuality in the faces of their people, alleging that these homosexuals are out to destroy the family. More pressing issues have been shoved to the sidelines, because some men can't stand the thought of what gay men allegedly do with each other in bed. We've failed to condemn the Church of Nigeria's support for the Same Sex Marriage Prevention Act. We've failed to condemn the Church of Zimbabwe's failure to confront Robert Mugabe.
Mad Priest (revpjh.blogspot.com) posted this comment of Desmond Tutu's, given after Morgan Tsvangirai was wheeled out of the hospital:
"We Africans should hang our heads in shame. How can what is happening in Zimbabwe elicit hardly a word of concern let alone condemnation from us leaders of Africa?
"Just when one thought that the news out of Zimbabwe could not get worse, sure as anything it does.
"Do we really care about human rights, do we care that people of flesh and blood, fellow Africans, are being treated like rubbish, almost worse than they were ever treated by rabid racists?
"Oh Africa, my Africa, oh Africa our Africa, why are we betraying you so viciously in Zimbabwe, in Darfur, in the DRC (Congo), why are we letting you down so horribly badly?"
We in the Anglican Communion have gotten so distracted by the issue of homosexuality that we have forgotten to deal with issues of human rights. This reflects very poorly on us. I pray we fix it, now. Oasis Michigan, my Diocese's LGBT outreach ministry has sent a response to the Primates' Communique to our House of Bishops. In it, we ask them to call Akinola to account for his support of Nigeria's SSMPA.
Meanwhile, despite the implicit claim of Global South Anglican, the writers there are not the sole voice of Anglicans in the Global South. You've already stumbled on my blog. Here's one more:
http://wanderingchristian.luizcoelho.com/
(Luiz Coelho is a gay Latin American and a progressive Anglican)
Meanwhile, Episcopal News Service has coverage of the gathering of Anglican women delegates to the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_83098_ENG_HTM.htm
They:
Resolve "...to remain resolute in our solidarity with one another and in our commitment, above all else, to pursue and fulfill God's mission in all we say and do."
"...do not accept that there is any one issue of difference or contention which can, or indeed would, every cause us to break the unity as represented by our common baptism. Neither would we ever consider severing the deep and abiding bonds of affection which characterize our relationships as Anglican women."
"The women of the Communion have, I believe, moved from bewilderment to outrage at the ways in which a small cabal of leaders have continued to insist that the issues exercising them alone over human sexuality are inevitably to preoccupy us as well." - Jenny Te Paa, ahorangi (dean) of the College of St. John the Evangelist, Auckland, New Zealand
"...the priority focus for Anglican women always has been the pressing issues of life and death, which are daily facing too many of the women and children of God's world. How can we compare the needless horrific suffering of women and girls being brutally raped when collecting firewood or water with the endless hysteria of male leaders wanting to debate whether gay men have full humanity or not?" Te Paa again
"Everybody is aware of the Nigerian position. My understanding of the Bible is God made man and woman. The Bible also says to be compassionate to others around us ... Even in the family, sisters and brothers from the same womb, we disagree. But that does not stop us from being sisters and brothers. I say this as a mother, as a woman, as a wife, it can never be over." Olajumoke Florence Akinkoye, lawyer from Nigeria
Nomfundo Walaza of South Africa, member of Anglican Consultative Council Standing Committee: The women's statement came after a "sacred space listening process."
Sarah Dylan Bruer, an Episcopal priest in training, offers us some thoughts on a major Global South Anglican blog.
Link
The blog in question is www.globalsouthanglican.org, but it's down at the moment. Anyway, it was a collection of writings by major GS Anglican bishops and thinkers.
As Sarah points out, everyone in the above photo is male. All the faces are male, as are most (maybe all) the people whose backs are turned. From what I remember from my visits to the blog when it was running, all the posters were men. All were conservative, some highly so. Now, both Africans and Asians were represented, as was one White contributor from the US (Dr Ephraim Radner), so I commend their racial diversity.
But, these guys are NOT the only voice of Anglicans in the Global South. Half of all Global Southerners are female. Some, like me, aren't theologically conservative. I suspect that many of them would be willing to agree to disagree on homosexuality. And yet, the title of the blog of GS bishops is, Global South Anglican.
As I mentioned before, when we are oppressed, we often replicate the patterns of oppression we learned, and then inflict them on groups that we have power over. Here, it looks to me like some Global South leaders have usurped the voice that is not theirs - the voices of their women, their laity, their LGBT people. They constantly shove the issue of homosexuality in the faces of their people, alleging that these homosexuals are out to destroy the family. More pressing issues have been shoved to the sidelines, because some men can't stand the thought of what gay men allegedly do with each other in bed. We've failed to condemn the Church of Nigeria's support for the Same Sex Marriage Prevention Act. We've failed to condemn the Church of Zimbabwe's failure to confront Robert Mugabe.
Mad Priest (revpjh.blogspot.com) posted this comment of Desmond Tutu's, given after Morgan Tsvangirai was wheeled out of the hospital:
"We Africans should hang our heads in shame. How can what is happening in Zimbabwe elicit hardly a word of concern let alone condemnation from us leaders of Africa?
"Just when one thought that the news out of Zimbabwe could not get worse, sure as anything it does.
"Do we really care about human rights, do we care that people of flesh and blood, fellow Africans, are being treated like rubbish, almost worse than they were ever treated by rabid racists?
"Oh Africa, my Africa, oh Africa our Africa, why are we betraying you so viciously in Zimbabwe, in Darfur, in the DRC (Congo), why are we letting you down so horribly badly?"
We in the Anglican Communion have gotten so distracted by the issue of homosexuality that we have forgotten to deal with issues of human rights. This reflects very poorly on us. I pray we fix it, now. Oasis Michigan, my Diocese's LGBT outreach ministry has sent a response to the Primates' Communique to our House of Bishops. In it, we ask them to call Akinola to account for his support of Nigeria's SSMPA.
Meanwhile, despite the implicit claim of Global South Anglican, the writers there are not the sole voice of Anglicans in the Global South. You've already stumbled on my blog. Here's one more:
http://wanderingchristian.luizcoelho.com/
(Luiz Coelho is a gay Latin American and a progressive Anglican)
Meanwhile, Episcopal News Service has coverage of the gathering of Anglican women delegates to the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York.
http://www.episcopalchurch.org/3577_83098_ENG_HTM.htm
They:
Resolve "...to remain resolute in our solidarity with one another and in our commitment, above all else, to pursue and fulfill God's mission in all we say and do."
"...do not accept that there is any one issue of difference or contention which can, or indeed would, every cause us to break the unity as represented by our common baptism. Neither would we ever consider severing the deep and abiding bonds of affection which characterize our relationships as Anglican women."
"The women of the Communion have, I believe, moved from bewilderment to outrage at the ways in which a small cabal of leaders have continued to insist that the issues exercising them alone over human sexuality are inevitably to preoccupy us as well." - Jenny Te Paa, ahorangi (dean) of the College of St. John the Evangelist, Auckland, New Zealand
"...the priority focus for Anglican women always has been the pressing issues of life and death, which are daily facing too many of the women and children of God's world. How can we compare the needless horrific suffering of women and girls being brutally raped when collecting firewood or water with the endless hysteria of male leaders wanting to debate whether gay men have full humanity or not?" Te Paa again
"Everybody is aware of the Nigerian position. My understanding of the Bible is God made man and woman. The Bible also says to be compassionate to others around us ... Even in the family, sisters and brothers from the same womb, we disagree. But that does not stop us from being sisters and brothers. I say this as a mother, as a woman, as a wife, it can never be over." Olajumoke Florence Akinkoye, lawyer from Nigeria
Nomfundo Walaza of South Africa, member of Anglican Consultative Council Standing Committee: The women's statement came after a "sacred space listening process."
Friday, March 16, 2007
Morgan Tsvangirai appeals for international support
Tsvangirai, as readers will note, was arrested and beaten by Zimbabwean police at an opposition meeting, along with several other members of the political opposition to Mugabe. I believe that at least one person has been killed in state-condoned violence. Tsvangirai lost an election widely believed to have been rigged in 2002.
"Speaking from his hospital bed, in his first interview since being badly beaten by Mr Mugabe’s thugs, Morgan Tsvangirai vowed to fight on to win democracy for the former British colony.
He insisted that change was "within sight" for the country, but insisted that opposition leaders needed help from foreign powers.
Mr Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), said:"Yes, they brutalised my flesh. But they will never break my spirit. I will soldier on until Zimbabwe is free."
"Mr Tsvangirai described how a peaceable meeting organised by local churches was broken up by police officers acting under Mr Mugabe’s orders. Several officials from the MDC party were arrested and taken to a police station. Mr Tsvangirai went there to appeal for their release.
He said: "Upon my arrival at Machipisa Police Station, all hell broke loose. I was pulled out of my car by heavily built men in police gear and they began smashing my head against the wall while pushing me inside the station
."The orgy of heavy beatings continued once we were all inside the station. They were mostly targeting my head and my face.
"The assaults, punctuated with obscene verbal attacks on my person, my family, my party the MDC, and my supporters continued for a long time.
"It was all like a bad dream. I felt like my head had been smashed open or I had been partially decapitated. I passed out three times, I was later told by eyewitnesses."
Tim Hall and Agencies, writing for Telegraph (UK)
Link
Mugabe claims that the opposition is waging a violent campaign to oust him, and has warned that they will pay a "heavy price". Political tensions have escalated recently, as the 83 year-old dictator is planning to extend his rule, possibly until 2014. As far as I know, the violence has been mostly on Mugabe's side.
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-03-14T181022Z_01_L14249813_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-ZIMBABWE-OPPOSITION-COL.XML
Tsvangirai, as readers will note, was arrested and beaten by Zimbabwean police at an opposition meeting, along with several other members of the political opposition to Mugabe. I believe that at least one person has been killed in state-condoned violence. Tsvangirai lost an election widely believed to have been rigged in 2002.
"Speaking from his hospital bed, in his first interview since being badly beaten by Mr Mugabe’s thugs, Morgan Tsvangirai vowed to fight on to win democracy for the former British colony.
He insisted that change was "within sight" for the country, but insisted that opposition leaders needed help from foreign powers.
Mr Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), said:"Yes, they brutalised my flesh. But they will never break my spirit. I will soldier on until Zimbabwe is free."
"Mr Tsvangirai described how a peaceable meeting organised by local churches was broken up by police officers acting under Mr Mugabe’s orders. Several officials from the MDC party were arrested and taken to a police station. Mr Tsvangirai went there to appeal for their release.
He said: "Upon my arrival at Machipisa Police Station, all hell broke loose. I was pulled out of my car by heavily built men in police gear and they began smashing my head against the wall while pushing me inside the station
."The orgy of heavy beatings continued once we were all inside the station. They were mostly targeting my head and my face.
"The assaults, punctuated with obscene verbal attacks on my person, my family, my party the MDC, and my supporters continued for a long time.
"It was all like a bad dream. I felt like my head had been smashed open or I had been partially decapitated. I passed out three times, I was later told by eyewitnesses."
Tim Hall and Agencies, writing for Telegraph (UK)
Link
Mugabe claims that the opposition is waging a violent campaign to oust him, and has warned that they will pay a "heavy price". Political tensions have escalated recently, as the 83 year-old dictator is planning to extend his rule, possibly until 2014. As far as I know, the violence has been mostly on Mugabe's side.
http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2007-03-14T181022Z_01_L14249813_RTRIDST_0_NEWS-ZIMBABWE-OPPOSITION-COL.XML
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Susan Anthony, died March 13, 1906
"Women, we might as well be dogs baying the moon as petitioners without the right to vote!"
Susan B Anthony was a contemporary of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Jenks Bloomer, and Frederick Douglass. She was a suffragette and an abolitionist, and attempted to forge alliances between suffragettes, abolitionists, and labor organizations. Somewhat like Rosa Parks over a century later, she showed up at the 1872 election, cast a ballot, was arrested, and went to trial. She and her lawyer aruged that, as a citizen, she had every right to vote. Supreme Court Justice Ward Hunt essentially instructed the jury to declare her guilty, reading an opinion that he had written before the trial was over. He fined her $100, which she swore never to pay. In a move to preclude her appeal, he ordered that she not be imprisoned until she paid the fine.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/sbaaccount.html
In the end, Susan Anthony and women worldwide had the last laugh. Wyoming allowed women to vote in 1869, and the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution guaranteed that right to all American women in 1920.
"Women, we might as well be dogs baying the moon as petitioners without the right to vote!"
Susan B Anthony was a contemporary of Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Amelia Jenks Bloomer, and Frederick Douglass. She was a suffragette and an abolitionist, and attempted to forge alliances between suffragettes, abolitionists, and labor organizations. Somewhat like Rosa Parks over a century later, she showed up at the 1872 election, cast a ballot, was arrested, and went to trial. She and her lawyer aruged that, as a citizen, she had every right to vote. Supreme Court Justice Ward Hunt essentially instructed the jury to declare her guilty, reading an opinion that he had written before the trial was over. He fined her $100, which she swore never to pay. In a move to preclude her appeal, he ordered that she not be imprisoned until she paid the fine.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/anthony/sbaaccount.html
In the end, Susan Anthony and women worldwide had the last laugh. Wyoming allowed women to vote in 1869, and the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution guaranteed that right to all American women in 1920.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
