The church of Brazil has done a remarkable job of considering the draft "Anglican Covenant." Their paper is published on Fr. Mark's blog among others. I commend it to your thoughtful reading.
My own reading of the draft (only I care about this) is about the same as the Brazilian in that I share their concerns.
My conclusion is that this is simply a bad idea. To have such a document is inevitably to alter the nature of the communion into something empire like. I think we dealt with that idea in 1776.
PRELUDIUM: Brazil on the Anglican Covenant, particularly part 4.
FWIW
jimB
25 November 2009
24 November 2009
Time Like a Never Ending Stream
If you got a message or your reader shows another new post this morning named simply, "Time" my apologies. I encountered an odd malfunction and guessed wrong trying to clear it. Oooops
I like that image: time is a river. Time erodes the soft stuff leaving the beautiful structures below. In the Bible class I had been attending, I (boringly often I understand) suggested that in reading ancient texts, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures, one must look for that structure below. And, of course, one needs allow for the context then and now.
Ruth goes out into the fields, seduces Boaz and saves herself and her mother-in-law. In the process she becomes an ancestor of king David. When we look for the underlying structures what do we find?
Back in grade school, where the story was cleaned up rather a lot, we were told about how Ruth's willingness to keep her commitment to her mother-in-law was the inspiring point of the story. Why then is her slipping into Boaz's bed roll a tale to tell? And what of her getting her husband using aggressive unmarried sexual conduct? That qualified her as an ancestor of the great Israeli royal house.
Flip over to Judges and Samuel. Read of David and Jonathon and Saul's anger because their relationship. What is the underlying structure of that story that we should seek? Well one clear answer is that God is not a homophobe! He did not side cwith Saul.
I think that one part of the structure we need consider as we are confronted by the AC-NA, GafCon, FIF and other Chapman Memo attacks on the church is this: God is not in the human purity business.
God is holy. God seeks relationships with us. But God does not expect us to be pure in the way the homophobes and misogynists proclaim. Nathan calls David to account crying justice to power not condemning his sexuality.
God loved Ruth and David. Both are commended as part of the great stream of God's love and salvation plan. Neither qualifies for the sort of pristine removal from humanity that the Romans with their celibacy fetish, or they and the self-styled "orthodox" of the Anglican community demand.
The beautiful substructure shows God loving us not for being pure or asexual or even for trying. Rather it shows God loving us as God's creative process makes us. God calls us to cry justice to power. We are not called to celibacy, imagined purity or monogamy (a concept that would have made David giggle I think) or for that matter any particular sexuality. We are called to loving relationships, valuing the other, and equity.
Where we went astray was not getting the expiration date on the desert holiness code. The Hebrew explanation of how they could find God and liberation in Babylon was flawed. Jesus clearly knew the stories. Faced with the pharisees, he certainly would have understood the Chapman Memo. He preached the kingdom of God -- love and justice not purity and legalism at hand. That is what time shows us under the soft stuff.
jimB
I like that image: time is a river. Time erodes the soft stuff leaving the beautiful structures below. In the Bible class I had been attending, I (boringly often I understand) suggested that in reading ancient texts, especially in the Hebrew Scriptures, one must look for that structure below. And, of course, one needs allow for the context then and now.
Ruth goes out into the fields, seduces Boaz and saves herself and her mother-in-law. In the process she becomes an ancestor of king David. When we look for the underlying structures what do we find?
Back in grade school, where the story was cleaned up rather a lot, we were told about how Ruth's willingness to keep her commitment to her mother-in-law was the inspiring point of the story. Why then is her slipping into Boaz's bed roll a tale to tell? And what of her getting her husband using aggressive unmarried sexual conduct? That qualified her as an ancestor of the great Israeli royal house.
Flip over to Judges and Samuel. Read of David and Jonathon and Saul's anger because their relationship. What is the underlying structure of that story that we should seek? Well one clear answer is that God is not a homophobe! He did not side cwith Saul.
I think that one part of the structure we need consider as we are confronted by the AC-NA, GafCon, FIF and other Chapman Memo attacks on the church is this: God is not in the human purity business.
God is holy. God seeks relationships with us. But God does not expect us to be pure in the way the homophobes and misogynists proclaim. Nathan calls David to account crying justice to power not condemning his sexuality.
God loved Ruth and David. Both are commended as part of the great stream of God's love and salvation plan. Neither qualifies for the sort of pristine removal from humanity that the Romans with their celibacy fetish, or they and the self-styled "orthodox" of the Anglican community demand.
The beautiful substructure shows God loving us not for being pure or asexual or even for trying. Rather it shows God loving us as God's creative process makes us. God calls us to cry justice to power. We are not called to celibacy, imagined purity or monogamy (a concept that would have made David giggle I think) or for that matter any particular sexuality. We are called to loving relationships, valuing the other, and equity.
Where we went astray was not getting the expiration date on the desert holiness code. The Hebrew explanation of how they could find God and liberation in Babylon was flawed. Jesus clearly knew the stories. Faced with the pharisees, he certainly would have understood the Chapman Memo. He preached the kingdom of God -- love and justice not purity and legalism at hand. That is what time shows us under the soft stuff.
jimB
22 November 2009
A time to live a time to die -- Final update
Rosanne has passed from life through death to life eternal. Fr. Jon has a loving tribute post with an opportunity to post a sympathy or triumph note at OCICBW. Two other notes wort reading are Wounded Bird and another at GAFCON. I commend all three to your attention.
She most certainly will rest in peace and rise in glory.
******************************************************
It is generally true, I fear, that life is linear. Our lives are journeys yes, and we make choices that change the way points. But the beginning and end points are pretty clear -- we are born and we die. What matters is the way points and the manner in which we travel.
She most certainly will rest in peace and rise in glory.
******************************************************
It is generally true, I fear, that life is linear. Our lives are journeys yes, and we make choices that change the way points. But the beginning and end points are pretty clear -- we are born and we die. What matters is the way points and the manner in which we travel.
Rosanne who is near the end of her journey has shown many of us an example of walking the last part of pathway with grace and dignity as she concludes her journey. You can check or Wounded Bird for progress reports from Rosanne. I hope you will join in our prayers for her and for Gary
FWIW
jimB
20 November 2009
on executions
NEW YORK -- A prison system official says a New York City man is free after spending nearly two decades behind bars for murder {My emphasis} before a judge declared him innocent.
Fernando Bermudez was released from the Sing Sing prison in Ossining at about 2:10 p.m. Friday. A Manhattan judge overturned Bermudez's 1992 conviction last week, saying it stemmed from unreliable witness testimony.
But Bermudez remained behind bars because he hadn't served a 27-month sentence in a federal drug case.
A federal judge on Thursday ordered that Bermudez be released at least until June 30 while his lawyers ask federal officials to credit his drug sentence as served. ...
I am asked from time to time, why I oppose the death penalty. I reply that living in Illinois where 13 of 26 death row inmates were found to be innocent, where two people were nearly executed for a crime Brian Dugan committed, where we have had a string of governors who are either themselves convicts or shortly may be, I have developed a mantra "We cannot do it right: we must not do it."
I do not know Mr. Bermudez. I suspect you do not either. Based on the article from which I quoted above, he is not someone I want to know. Even after his acquittal from a seventeen year old murder charge, he still faces prison for drug convictions. He is in short a poster boy candidate for abolishing capitol punishment. He is not someone who can spend his own influence and resources avoiding false conviction and he in fact suffered one.
In most States, a convict spends about twelve years on death row if I read correctly. But it took seventeen years for a court to finally determine that Mr. Bermudez did not commit murder. It is bad enough that it took that long, suppose he had been executed five years ago! It is not so far fetched, consider that no one spends a lot of resources on cases where the supposed killer has been executed.
It may be, albeit I doubt it, that all of the people executed in America or awaiting execution are guilty. But the odds are against that. We do make mistakes. When possible those mistakes are rectified, but there is no reason to think we have not missed one or two. And one or two are too many.
Simple observation and a cry for justice are enough to render the death penalty obsolete. We simply must stop.
FWIW
jimB
11 November 2009
impotent importance
Yesterday came the reports that the Swedish church has consecrated two women bishops, one of whom is a lesbian as the saying goes, "in a domestic partnership." As the church recently changed its canon law to permit 'gay marriages' perhaps she will, when the new liturgies become available, move to being married albeit I don't believe she has publicly said they will.
Notable for bad manners and absence, the Church of England was not represented by its invited archbishops. I am capable of wondering, when will they "get it?"
America elected Gene Robinson. The archbishop of Canterbury said, "no no!" We consecrated him anyway. Sweden elected Eva Brunne, the archbishop said, "snub!" She was consecrated anyway. There may just be a pattern here! Maybe oh maybe approval from the archbishop is simply not that important anymore -- if it ever was. Maybe obeying what churches experience as the voice of the Spirit is more important to them than the voice of assumed authority.
Perhaps this is one way to observe a prophetic action. Jesus told us brother would turn on brother. Seeing Dr. Williams doing the turning away, reminds us of those who left when Jesus's teachings became hard to follow.
Given the rather surly looking silence from Lambeth and York, we can only speculate. Is the church now in 'impaired communion' (what a meaningless phrase!) with Sweden as it is with America? Or do the archbishops really believe they can be in communion with America and Sweden but not Stockholm or New Hampshire?
Being "in communion" is bi-polar: you are or not. For whatever (wistful? hopeful?) reason, TEC has been ignoring reality waiting for the archbishops to come to their senses. Sweden has demonstrated they wont. The archbishops are so set on the fruitless pursuit of institutional unity that they simply wont repent the insult done to a delightfully Christian bishop and his people in New Hampshire. Instead they extend the insult tp a lady in Sweden who at this remove seems equally a good and decent Christian.
Fellowships once broken are not easily mended. The GAF(fe)CON primates have a sense of their curial authority now, and it is difficult to imagine them meekly conceding it to Dr. Williams. He has probably lost the American relationship too. I fear he is taking the CoE into an isolated place. It is difficult to see how the world wide communion can survive his failures.
FWIW
jimB
Notable for bad manners and absence, the Church of England was not represented by its invited archbishops. I am capable of wondering, when will they "get it?"
America elected Gene Robinson. The archbishop of Canterbury said, "no no!" We consecrated him anyway. Sweden elected Eva Brunne, the archbishop said, "snub!" She was consecrated anyway. There may just be a pattern here! Maybe oh maybe approval from the archbishop is simply not that important anymore -- if it ever was. Maybe obeying what churches experience as the voice of the Spirit is more important to them than the voice of assumed authority.
Perhaps this is one way to observe a prophetic action. Jesus told us brother would turn on brother. Seeing Dr. Williams doing the turning away, reminds us of those who left when Jesus's teachings became hard to follow.
Given the rather surly looking silence from Lambeth and York, we can only speculate. Is the church now in 'impaired communion' (what a meaningless phrase!) with Sweden as it is with America? Or do the archbishops really believe they can be in communion with America and Sweden but not Stockholm or New Hampshire?
Being "in communion" is bi-polar: you are or not. For whatever (wistful? hopeful?) reason, TEC has been ignoring reality waiting for the archbishops to come to their senses. Sweden has demonstrated they wont. The archbishops are so set on the fruitless pursuit of institutional unity that they simply wont repent the insult done to a delightfully Christian bishop and his people in New Hampshire. Instead they extend the insult tp a lady in Sweden who at this remove seems equally a good and decent Christian.
Fellowships once broken are not easily mended. The GAF(fe)CON primates have a sense of their curial authority now, and it is difficult to imagine them meekly conceding it to Dr. Williams. He has probably lost the American relationship too. I fear he is taking the CoE into an isolated place. It is difficult to see how the world wide communion can survive his failures.
FWIW
jimB
07 November 2009
Take it to the Lord in prayer
I had been thinking this week of another on my little series of prayer posts. And as it is the anniversary of my parent's passage from life through death, I had been thinking about my folks. Then came the news from Ft. Hood.
How do we as my dad's favorite hymn has it, "take it to the Lord in prayer?"
That is not a small question. People died because they were our soldiers and a man for not yet clear reason, shot them. He too, I understand from the news, may soon die of his wounds. One of the police, a young lady, who apparently shot and thereby ended his insane actions is also wounded but expected to survive. How do we carry the death of all those people including a pregnant woman and her unborn child to the Lord in prayer, what does that mean?
My mom once observed that one cannot pray about something without forgiving those involved. I think she had a point, albeit she was not quite correct. Better to say one cannot properly pray about something without forgiving.
There are those alas who can and do pray for vengeance. I have heard someone say they hoped the shooter recovers so he can be executed. Now there is a prayer I would not want on my soul! Jesus taught us differently. As the NIV has it:
So, we can take it to the Lord in prayer, but not in anger, not seeking vengeance, but rather after we forgive. I wonder if those who turn out for the funerals, who go to the memorial services get that. Or are they there praying for vengeance? Do the carry anger at Moslems even though we do not know if the fact that the shooter was one factored into his actions? Can they in other words lay the pain at the feet of Jesus?
When we pray, if we have in fact come to forgive, to let go of anger and hate, we can receive the benefits Jesus instructed us to seek, and that the hymn my dad loved lamented we often do not receive. It is not just the grief and horror at the murders we have to take to our prayers but our own anger and hatred. And that is where we often fail to take it to the Lord.
We all have been known to say the prayer. Do we walk the walk? That is another matter entire.
FWIW
jimB
How do we as my dad's favorite hymn has it, "take it to the Lord in prayer?"
That is not a small question. People died because they were our soldiers and a man for not yet clear reason, shot them. He too, I understand from the news, may soon die of his wounds. One of the police, a young lady, who apparently shot and thereby ended his insane actions is also wounded but expected to survive. How do we carry the death of all those people including a pregnant woman and her unborn child to the Lord in prayer, what does that mean?
My mom once observed that one cannot pray about something without forgiving those involved. I think she had a point, albeit she was not quite correct. Better to say one cannot properly pray about something without forgiving.
There are those alas who can and do pray for vengeance. I have heard someone say they hoped the shooter recovers so he can be executed. Now there is a prayer I would not want on my soul! Jesus taught us differently. As the NIV has it:
Forgive us our sins,
for we also forgive everyone who sins against us.
So, we can take it to the Lord in prayer, but not in anger, not seeking vengeance, but rather after we forgive. I wonder if those who turn out for the funerals, who go to the memorial services get that. Or are they there praying for vengeance? Do the carry anger at Moslems even though we do not know if the fact that the shooter was one factored into his actions? Can they in other words lay the pain at the feet of Jesus?
When we pray, if we have in fact come to forgive, to let go of anger and hate, we can receive the benefits Jesus instructed us to seek, and that the hymn my dad loved lamented we often do not receive. It is not just the grief and horror at the murders we have to take to our prayers but our own anger and hatred. And that is where we often fail to take it to the Lord.
We all have been known to say the prayer. Do we walk the walk? That is another matter entire.
FWIW
jimB
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
