London Times Cryptic Crossword for March 30

It’s back after a brief Easter break! Here is the latest London Times Sunday cryptic crossword puzzle. Just click on it to get the full-sized version.

South Carolina protests Episcopal House of Bishops’ actions

Here is how the Standing Committee and Bishop of South Carolina are reacting to the House of Bishops’ recent actions:

We, as the Standing Committee and Bishop of South Carolina, write this letter to strongly protest what we recognize as a failure to follow the Canons of our Episcopal Church in the recent depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox. We respectfully request that you and the House of Bishops revisit those decisions, refrain from the planned selection of a new bishop for the Diocese of San Joaquin, and make every effort to follow our Church Canons in all future House of Bishops decisions.

We believe that deposition is the most severe sanction that can be applied against a bishop.. Consequently, it is most important that both the letter and the spirit of the Canons be followed. In this instance, it is clear that the canonical safeguards in place were not followed…

Not only is this distinction of critical importance under the present circumstances, but also the question may arise again. Accordingly, and with all due respect to you and Chancellor Beers, we must respectfully request that you and the House of Bishops re-visit your decision and allow for a canonically correct vote on the depositions of Bishops Cox and Schofield and on any future possible depositions. Additionally, for the good of our Church, we ask you not to proceed with the planned election of a replacement for Bishop Schofield until the matter of his deposition can be legally and canonically resolved.

The Diocese of South Carolina demonstrated our commitment to the proper observance of The Episcopal Church Canons with two election conventions and eighteen months of Standing Committee and Bishop confirmations. Because we feel so strongly that the Canons were not followed in the depositions of Bishops Schofield and Cox, we must respectfully refuse to recognize the depositions, and we will not recognize any new bishop who may be elected to replace Bishop Schofield, unless and until the canons are followed.

The whole letter is available here at TitusOneNine.

Call for review after trial ‘flouted Church rules’

Here is a fuller account, from George Conger, of the recent depositions of bishops by the Episcopal Church House of Bishops, and of the irregularities, obfuscation, and outright lies involved in it.

US Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori failed to follow the procedural rules governing the trial of Bishop William Cox for “abandonment of the Communion” of the Episcopal Church an investigation by The Church of England Newspaper has found.

In a March 12 press conference, Bishop Schori stated she had not followed rules governing the requirement that the 88-year old retired bishop be granted a speedy trial, that he be informed of the charges against him in a timely fashion, and that the consent of the church’s senior bishops be solicited by the Presiding Bishop to suspend him from office pending trial. A subsequent investigation by CEN in conjunction with The Living Church magazine revealed an insufficient number of votes to convict were cast also…

In June 2005, Bishop Cox performed ordinations at Christ Church, Overland Park, Kansas on behalf of Archbishop Henry Orombi of Uganda. Earlier that year Christ Church negotiated an amicable parting of the ways with the diocese of Kansas and had joined the Ugandan Church. Bishop Cox returned the following month to Overland Park to perform confirmations on behalf of Archbishop Orombi.

The bishops of Kansas and Oklahoma filed a complaint against Bishop Cox for performing Episcopal acts without the permission of the local diocesan bishop. In March 2006 the Church’s Title IV review committee found there was sufficient evidence to bring Bishop Cox to trial, however, Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold declined to prosecute.

Following the 2006 election of Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori as Presiding Bishop the charges were resubmitted. Bishop Cox, then 87 years of age, declined to contest the matter telling his attorney he was too old to fight, and by letter resigned his membership in the House of Bishops on March 28, 2007.

In his letter of resignation Bishop Cox said that although he was resigning his membership in the House of Bishops and was not resigning his orders and would be joining the Province of the Southern Cone and would continue his episcopal ministry in that branch of the Communion.

The procedures laid out in Title IV, Canon 9, sections 1 and 2 (the abandonment canon) to depose a bishop state that after the Title IV review committee issues a certificate of abandonment the Presiding Bishop “shall” “forthwith” notify the accused. The Presiding Bishop then “shall” seek the consent of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction to inhibit the accused bishop, and trial “shall” take place at the “next” meeting of the House of Bishops.

At a March 12 press conference Bishop Schori outlined the procedural history surrounding the Cox case. She said the Title IV review committee had “certified [Bishop Cox] several years ago. … before her time.” She added, however, that “it was never brought to the House of Bishops for action.”

She then said she “did not send it to the three senior bishops” and the House of Bishops “did not consider it in September” at their meeting in New Orleans with the Archbishop of Canterbury due to the “the press of other business.”

Several minutes later, Bishop Schori said she wanted to “clarify” her earlier statements. She said she had been “unable to get the consent of the three senior bishops last spring. That’s why we didn’t bring it to the September meeting” of the House of Bishops.

Contacted after the press conference, one of the three senior bishops, who declined to be named, stated he had never been asked by Bishop Schori to consent to Bishop Cox’s supension.

The Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor, Mr. David Booth Beers, declined to address the issues surrounding Bishop Cox’s case in a March 15 statement released through the Episcopal Church’s press office. However, he stated that his “position” was that there had been a legal quorum to depose the two bishops on March 12.

Canon lawyer, retired Bishop William Wantland of Eau Claire told CEN the deposition of Bishop Cox was “void” for failing to achieve the required “majority vote of all bishops entitled to vote” and because the “canonical procedure was simply not followed.”

In defence of the proceedings against Bishop Cox, Indianapolis Bishop Catherine Waynick wrote that while the “canons may need to be clarified, what does not seem to need clarifying” was that “William Cox willfully violated the canons by functioning where he had been specifically asked not to.”

However, the charge brought against Bishop Cox was not violating diocesan boundaries. In 2006 Bishop Griswold dropped the charges proffered against Bishop Cox for the Kansas ordination, raising the question whether the bishops convicted him of a crime not before the bishops for adjudication.

The charge was “Abandonment of Communion,” Bishop Wantland said. The punishment for violation of diocesan boundaries “is a totally different charge. In my opinion, this is what he should have been charged with, and the procedure under Canon IV. 9. 2 was totally inappropriate and without any justification,” he said.

George Conger’s entire account may be found here.

A short history of the Church in England

Thanks to Ruth Gledhill of the London Times for drawing attention to this video:

Statement from the Global South Primates Steering Committee

Five Primates (Abp Peter Akinola, Abp Greg Venables, Abp Kolini, Abp Mouneer Anis and Abp John Chew) met together for some heart to heart conversations from 13th to 15th March in London. They released a statement made public today on Global South Anglican which, among other things, asserted:

Following the inconclusive response to the repeated calls for repentance and the specific requirements of The Episcopal Church in the Windsor Report and the various Communiques (Dromatine Feb 2005, Dar es Salem Feb 2007), the undifferentiated invitations to the Lambeth Conference (July 2008) of the un-repenting Bishops who have clearly flouted the bonds of trust and “torn the fabric at the deepest level” of the Communion is causing a significant number of Bishops to be troubled, in deep consternation and dilenma as to their own Lambeth participation.

The controversial visit involving the Joint Standing Committee of the Primates and the ACC (Oct 2007), without prior consultation with the Primates on its composition, procedure and accountability process, and its un-critical and overly generous assessment of the response of the House of Bishops (TEC) has further weakened the remaining fragile threads of trust in the Communion and severely affected hope for any genuine resolution.

These have caused various deepening negative assessments and cast further doubts on the state, will and ability, of the Communion to continue as a recognizable living and witnessing expression of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church. Consequently, initiatives and challenges have emerged which could lead to further fragmentation and disintegration in the Communion, which is already in the nadir of collegial trust and confidence.

It is against this backdrop that we, the Global South Primates’ Steering Committee, met to pray, share frankly and converse in collegial accountability. Enabled by the Holy Spirit, we were able to focus in unity on the original spirit, vision and vocation of the Global South in the Anglican Communion which had developed and deepened since the fateful event of November 2003…

We resolved, and urge all in the Global South and other orthodox constituencies of the wider Communion to strengthen our hearts and wills to work together for the fundamental renewal and transformation of the global Anglican Communion.

The Global South remains committed and encourage all Provinces to actively participate in the study and requested feedback on the St Andrew’s Draft of the Anglican Covenant, its substance and spirit to be in line with our common classical Anglican heritage of biblical, historical and reformed formularies of faith and ecclesiology. In particular, we strongly urge the presentation of a definitive text to the Provinces by ACC 14th (May 2009) to begin the urgent and timely process of official adoption and ratification for the Communion.

Through our conversations together and clarifications made, we are led to understand and appreciate the principled reasons for participation in GAFCON (June 2008) and Lambeth Conference (Jul 2008). Even if there are different perspectives on these, they do not and should not be allowed to disrupt the common vision, unity and trust within the Global South. We are looking forward to offer the fruit of the labour on the Anglican Catechism in Outline to the Anglican Communion in June 2008…

The initiative and need for GAFCON critically serves to remind us that the “torn fabric at the deepest level” of the Anglican Communion is still a living reality. We encourage the GAFCON participants to bear in mind the under-girding and wider framework of the united vocation and mission of the Global South for the life and witness of the wider Anglican Communion. We are encouraged that the primatial leadership of the GAFCON recognizes and supports the significance of the Windsor-Covenant process.

Unless the primary reason for the current crisis and division in the Communion is properly addressed, and the broken and impaired communion restored, the common life of the Communion cannot be expected to continue normally. It will be difficult to effectively fulfill our apostolic vocation, life and witness in and to a world so broken and divided, confused and lost, without the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ…

The full statement is here.

Bishop Michael Smith replies

From the Episcopal Diocese of North Dakota weblog:

In the past few days questions have been raised about policies and procedures for licensing a priest to officiate in the Episcopal Church and an article appeared in this morning’s Grand Forks Herald. These policies are governed by the Constitution & Canons of the Episcopal Church which state clearly that priests must be licensed to officiate by the bishop if they have not been ordained in the diocese where they are currently residing.

It is inappropriate to speak publicly about specific personnel matters. However, during these contentious times over the issue of sexual morality in the life of the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion, I have chosen to follow the recommendations of the bipartisan, international “Windsor Report.” Therefore, I will not ordain or license any clergy member who is unable to promise faithfulness in marriage or to abstain from sexual relationships outside of marriage.

While Episcopalians in North Dakota are not of one mind on these matters, at our annual convention in 2005 a resolution was overwhelmingly passed which “commended the Windsor Report as a way forward together in spite of the differences which threaten to divide us” and expressed our desire for the Diocese of North Dakota “to remain both a member of the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion.”

Would that there were more bishops in the Episcopal Church who would take this kind of stand. From what I have read on the House of Bishops listserv, he is probably taking a lot of heat for this. He should be in our prayers. The full statement is here.

“He is not here…”

What you thought you came for

Is only a shell, a husk of meaning.

[T.S. Eliot, Little Gidding] …

Easter occurs … when we find in Jesus not a dead friend but a living stranger. … Some writers have—carelessly?—spoken of Jesus being raised ‘as’ the believing community, or alleged that the risen-ness of Jesus consists essentially in the persistence of Jesus’ own faith and trust in God within the Church. Yet this sidesteps the whole issue of the strangeness of the risen Jesus. … We have already noted that Jesus as risen is a Jesus who cannot be contained in the limits of a past human life; the corollary of this is that Jesus as risen legitimating and supporting memory of a community. The church is not ‘founded’ by Jesus of Nazareth as an institution to preserve the recollection of his deeds and words; it is the community of those who meet him as risen and the place where all the world may meet him as risen.

Human beings long to be assured that they are innocent. … The gospel will not ever tell us that we are innocent, but it will tell us that we are loved; and in asking us to receive and consent to that love, it asks us to identify with, and make our own, love’s comprehensive vision of all we are and have been. That is the transformation of desire as it affects our attitude to our own selves—to accept what we have been, so that all of it can be transformed. It is a more authentic desire because more comprehensive, turning away from the illusory attraction of an innocence that cannot be recovered unless the world is unmade. Grace will remake but not undo. There is all the difference in the world between Christ uncrucified and Christ risen…

Archbishop Rowan Williams, Resurrection

Cryptic Crossword Solution for March 16

Wow! It was my brother who came up with “Dolly Varden”. I never knew there was a trout with such a fancy name. In Latin it is salvelinus malma.

People want Scripture, not theology

From the Winnipeg Sun:

Fidelity to revealed truth and historic Christianity should trump unity in the debate surrounding schism within the Anglican Church. This contrasts sharply with the views of Rev. Paul Gibson, a liberal Anglican theologian who garnered attention for his essay recently on the Anglican Church of Canada website, in which he said schism is “not a catastrophic event” and is preferable to placating those who do not treaty “gays as equal” simply for the sake of unity.

This statement neatly ignores the reality one can treat gays with dignity and respect without necessarily condoning their behaviour or defying clear Scriptural teachings on homosexuality. In fact, the church is called to reach out to such people. This is the message of Jesus, who went out of his way to show unconditional love for everyone, but never retreated from identifying sin as sin.

Since the start of this year, eight Anglican parishes out of 2,000 have formally left the national church and have affiliated with conservative bishops who honour the Scriptures. The issue on the surface is performing blessings on same-sex couples. But this is only a symptom of a larger problem occurring in many denominations. Like many mainline Protestant denominations, the Anglican Church (at least in North America) has embarked on a more liberal direction. This involves ignoring cardinal doctrines of the faith, like the Resurrection of Christ, the Virgin Birth, and the deity of Jesus Christ. In other words, many have denied what makes Christianity sacred and unique among faiths.

Looking at the Episcopal Church in America (this is the American version of Anglicanism), one can see figures like Bishop John Shelby Spong who has built his theological career on denying every single supernatural element of the Christian faith to the point where one wonders why he calls himself Christian. In such a spiritual vacuum, why bother to attend church at all, many conclude.

Thus, is it any surprise congregations that hold to historic Christianity find themselves increasingly alienated from church leaders who deny every traditional doctrine at every turn? I strongly believe the dominant theological seminaries are largely to blame for this mess. Ministers emerge from these places with only doubts about the Bible and traditional doctrines. They also have learned a “social gospel” devoid of any spiritual content that has more to do with trendy leftist politics than with the original Gospel of Christ.

What happens is these ministers are steeped in this indoctrination and then are shocked to find their older congregations actually want to hear about the truth of the Bible or desire to deepen their relationship with God. Statistics bear out the fact churches that hold to traditional doctrines and relevant spiritual teachings, like evangelical denominations, are the ones that are growing. The older Protestant denominations that have embraced liberal theology and left-wing politics are the ones selling off church properties because their congregations are shrinking.

People are clearly hungry for spiritual truth in this age of post-modernism and moral relativism. They don’t hate gays, or anyone else, as these liberal theologians claim. They just want their churches to teach them what is right and wrong. Until they do, expect only more schism.

I don’t know anything about Joseph Quesnel, the author of this piece, but what he says makes a lot of sense.

Taking Christ out of Christianity

From the Toronto Globe & Mail. Just the message the world needs to hear at Easter…

That triumphal barnburner of an Easter hymn, Jesus Christ Has Risen Today – Hallelujah, this morning will rock the walls of Toronto’s West Hill United Church as it will in most Christian churches across the country. But at West Hill on the faith's holiest day, it will be done with a huge difference. The words “Jesus Christ” will be excised from what the congregation sings and replaced with “Glorious hope.” Thus, it will be hope that is declared to be resurrected – an expression of renewal of optimism and the human spirit – but not Jesus, contrary to Christianity’s central tenet about the return to life on Easter morning of the crucified divine son of God. Generally speaking, no divine anybody makes an appearance in West Hill’s Sunday service liturgy.

There is no authoritative Big-Godism, as Rev. Gretta Vosper, West Hill’s minister for the past 10 years, puts it. No petitionary prayers (“Dear God, step into the world and do good things about global warming and the poor”). No miracles-performing magic Jesus given birth by a virgin and coming back to life. No references to salvation, Christianity’s teaching of the final victory over death through belief in Jesus's death as an atonement for sin and the omnipotent love of God. For that matter, no omnipotent God, or god.

Ms. Vosper has written a book … in which she argues that the Christian church, in the form in which it exists today, has outlived its viability and either it sheds its no-longer credible myths, doctrines and dogmas, or it’s toast. She is considered one of the bright, if unconventional, minds within the United Church, Canada’s largest Protestant Christian denomination…

Other Christian clergy and theologians have talked about the need to dramatically reform the doctrines of a faith that, with the exception of its vibrancy in the United States, has lost huge numbers of adherents throughout the Western world it once dominated as Christendom. In Canada, where 75 per cent of the population self-identifies as Christian, only about 16 per cent attend weekly services. Addressing those statistics, what Ms. Vosper proposes is not so much reform as a scorched-earth approach.

A number of leading theologians in Britain – where the decline in adherents is more dramatic than in Canada – are on the same path, people like Richard Holloway, former bishop of Edinburgh and primate of the Scottish Episcopal (Anglican) Church, who has likened the Christian church to a self-service cafeteria stacked with messy trays of leftover food urgently in need of being thrown out. Like Bishop Holloway, Ms. Vosper does not want to dress up the theological detritus – her words – of the past two millennia with new language in the hope of making it more palatable. She wants to get rid of it, and build on its ashes a new spiritual movement that will have relevance in a tight-knit global world under threat of human destruction.

She says there’s been virtually a consensus among scholars for the past 30 years that the Bible is not some divine emanation – or in Ms. Vosper acronym, TAWOGFAT, The Authoritative Word of God For All Time – but a human project filled with contradictions and the conflicting worldviews and political perspectives of its authors. And yet, she says, the liberal Christian churches, including her own, won’t acknowledge that it is a human project, that it’s wrong in parts and that, in the 21st century, it’s no more useful as a spiritual and religious guide than a number of other books.

She says now that the work of biblical scholars has become publicly accessible, the churches and their clergy are caught living a lie that few people will buy much longer. “I just don’t think we can placate those in the pews long enough to transition into a kind of new community that doesn’t keep people away.”

She wants salvation redefined to mean new life through removing the causes of suffering in the world. She wants the church to define resurrection as “starting over”, “new chances”. She wants an end to the image of God as an intervening all-powerful authority who must be appeased to avoid divine wrath; rather she would have congregations work together as communities to define God – or god – according to their own worked-out definitions of what is holy and sacred. She wants the eucharist – the symbolic eating and drinking of Jesus’s body and blood to make the congregation part of Jesus’s body – to be instead a symbolic experience of community love.

What was it that Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15:17? If you have the stomach for it, you can read the whole article here.

Lesbian priest says she wants license to minister in ND

From the Grand Forks Herald:

A lesbian priest says she wants to start a dialogue with church leaders after the Episcopal bishop of North Dakota refused her request for a license to minister in the state. The Rev. Gayle Baldwin, 62, an associate professor of religion at the University of North Dakota, was ordained an Episcopal priest in 1980. She came out as a lesbian a decade ago in Wyoming, where she has a license to preach and administer the sacraments. She came to UND in 2000. Baldwin went public this week with a letter Episcopal leaders explaining her request to be licensed in North Dakota

“I have been clear from the beginning what my expectations are,” said Bishop Michael Smith, head of the 3,000 Episcopalians in North Dakota. “That is fidelity in marriage and abstinence for those not called to marriage.” Smith said it is “a confused time” for the Episcopal Church as the issue is debated, and he is upholding what the church always has taught.

Baldwin said she was ordained 28 years ago, long before she identified herself as a lesbian. Her bishop in Wyoming has been very supportive of her, she said. She agreed to stop working there as a priest when she came out as a lesbian, she said, after meeting the woman she believes God called her to love. For several years, she has led a nondenominational group called the “Potting Shed” in homes and the Women’s Center at UND, she said. Its members, gay and straight, have felt marginalized by traditional denominations, she said. Bishop Smith “needs to be challenged”, on the issue of denying her a license to do what God called and what the church already has ordained her to do, Baldwin said.

“I am trying to be faithful to the scriptures and trying to be faithful to the tradition of the church, while at the same time being open to what God might be doing in a new way,” Smith said. “We are in a period of discernment. It’s not an issue of civil rights.” …

In her letter to Episcopal leaders, Baldwin said the bishop, in refusing to acknowledge her ordination, also is refusing to acknowledge her baptism. “If a bishop can do this to one, then anyone is potentially at risk. This is why I am writing this open letter to all so that we might begin a dialogical conversation over this matter,” she said.

Three cheers for Bishop Smith. The entire article is here.

Some thoughts on Holy Saturday

We spoke at the beginning of Easter Saturday as a “no-man’s-land”, and later of the protection it offers to territory on either side. The image thus slowly taking shape can now be recognized: it is a boundary.

A boundary, after all, is an invisible line, anonymous and ambiguous, easy to ignore and belonging nowhere. Yet it exists to create identity and to assign belonging. The division it marks—visibly with a wall, invisibly with a map line— actually creates entities on either side, by at once separating and relating them.

Neighborhoods, counties, states, countries, hemispheres: all these are what they are because of the borders which keep them apart yet simultaneously make them adjacent. And just because they are so significant in their insignificance, so visible in their invisibility, so creative in their anonymity, boundary points become places of tension, argument—and insight.

Though it is at the boundary between them that rivals compete, it is also at their meeting point, and looking both ways, that one can see both sides and secure a bilateral perspective from which to judge between their arguments, and perhaps a balancing point or axis upon which to affirm them both. Possibly we are on the way to some insight into the meaning of Christ’s cross and resurrection if and when we can stand—as, intriguingly, so few in history seem consciously to have done—at the ambiguous, invisible, and apparently insignificant boundary between Good Friday and Easter Day.

Where better than at the Easter Saturday grave to see with clarity the vivid contrast between the humiliation of the crucified Christ and his glorious exaltation? Where better to find the wisdom which can unite cross and resurrection inextricably, and discover truth in such foolishness as presence-in-absence, powerful weakness, and life-giving death? Where better to hold in equilibrium the first-time hearing of the gospel story and its constant retelling by the people of faith?

Quoted from Alan Lewis, Between Cross and Resurrection: A Theology of Holy Saturday

Meanwhile, in Ontario…

From the Canadian Press:

The contentious issue of who owns three Ontario churches in which a breakaway group of Anglicans worship was before the courts Thursday as a judge was asked to entertain a joint-custody scenario…

They’re seeking exclusive use of the church buildings without interference from the diocese, which is asking the court to order the facilities be shared and jointly managed by the two groups.

“There has been no give from these withdrawing parishes” lawyer John Page told the court. “We think the words fair and equitable have to include some access, or there will be irreparable injury.”

A temporary order issued last month favoured the breakaway parishes but the civil matter has yet to be fully resolved. On Thursday, Page argued that the breakaway parishioners breached cannon [sic.], or church, law when they split without bishop approval. He also argued cannon law prevents the buildings from being sold, leased or mortgaged without permission from the bishop.

Ultimately, the issue is one of property rights, he said, suggesting the church buildings are held in trust by the diocese. Recognizing the matter may not be resolved without going to trial, Page urged the court to at least consider the "irreparable harm" such a delay might cause.
The diocese will not be able to enforce church law, it will be prevented from rebuilding its parishes, and parishioners who wish to worship under the Anglican Church of Canada banner will have to go elsewhere, he said.

Lawyers for the three Niagara parishes suggested the properties are held in trust for the congregants. They said it was the diocese that broke cannon law, both when it deviated from the scripture and when it unilaterally, and without due process, suspended the priests who voted to split. Despite claims that many Anglican Church of Canada followers have been left high and dry, the breakaway parishes insist the split really just affects a small group from St. George’s. Congregants from the other churches were unanimous in their decision to leave.

“At two of the parishes there’s nobody who wants the diocean service,” Peter Jervis argued. “We should call it what it is. There will be consequences for a small group at St. George’s.”
The congregations are among some 15 parishes in Canada, namely British Columbia and Ontario, that are looking to split from the church.

And from the National Post:

John Page, the lawyer who represented the diocese, said under church law the diocese holds the church property in trust. He added that final authority always lies with the diocese and its bishop. He said that since the parishes voted to leave, they in essence broke a contract and have now forfeited any rights to the property.

But he proposed that a joint committee be set up for each parish that would have a representative from the breakaway congregation and the diocese to manage the property. As well, the diocese wants a certain amount of time each Sunday and on feast days to run separate services for those still loyal to the Anglican Church of Canada. He was concerned that if the judge gave exclusive rights to the three parishes, it may act as an inducement for other churches thinking of leaving because they would not face immediate consequences…

The lawyer for the three, Peter Jervis, said it is the Anglican Church of Canada that has fallen away from Anglican teachings and has acted contrary to any trusts it may have held. He also said the case is much like one that would be found in family law. “Where there is difficulty and distress the court does not require [the two parties] to live together,” he said.

On a more personal note regarding this court case, one of the clergy involved wrote of his experience,

“We left home at 7:30 am travelling to downtown Toronto. The diocesan lawyer cross-examined 6 of us yesterday. I cannot give you any details of the cross-examination but I can tell you that I … spent over 3 hours being questioned by the diocesan lawyer. It was a long day! We got home after 9:00 pm. We identified a little bit more with Jesus on that first holy week.”

The full accounts can be found here and here.

An Open Letter from Bishop John W. Howe of Central Florida

This appeared on Covenant Communion this morning. It does my heart good to know that at least one bishop is taking a stand on this sad and evil state of affairs in the Episcopal Church. I am curious as to what the “post” is that he refers to.

I have just sent the following letter to the three most senior bishops in The Episcopal Church, and yes, you have my permission to distribute it in the largest type-face you can find.

The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

***

My Dear Brothers,

I need to say how totally disappointed and disgusted I am that not one of you has even acknowledged my post, let alone responded to it.

I have no illusions that the outcome of the despicable vote to depose John-David and William will be reversed, but AT LEAST we might want to obey the canons.

I have moved my concern to the Bishop-lawyers of our House, and I have a small degree of hope that they might be willing to take on an issue that you are obviously not willing to confront.

I recall that another person of influence washed his hands of a difficult matter on this same weekend some years ago.

Warmest best wishes for a glorious Easter,

The Right Rev. John W. Howe
Episcopal Bishop of Central Florida

Anglican schism not ‘catastrophic’

From the National Post (Canada):

Schism is not a “catastrophic” event and is preferable to placating those who do not treat gays as equal simply for the sake of unity, a Canadian Anglican theologian says. “There are moments when treating unity as kind of absolute virtue that’s higher than anything else is not necessarily the right thing,” Rev. Paul Gibson said in an interview, concerning an essay he wrote that was posted on the Anglican Church of Canada’s Web site Tuesday. He wrote the essay in relation to the present schism in the Anglican Church over same-sex blessings, and concluded that a unified church that treats gays unequally would be a greater evil than a divided church.

Since the start of the year, eight Anglican parishes, out of a total of about 2,000 across the country, have formally left the national Church… Wednesday, the Anglican Diocese of Niagara will be back in court demanding access to the buildings of two breakaway churches until the larger issue of who owns the property is settled.

Rev. Gibson wrote that the current mood of “fear and anxiety” in the Anglican Church is not warranted and the history of Christianity is rife with examples in which schism was necessary. And unity, he added, has always been a goal rather than a reality. “The primitive church was, in fact, united for a metaphorical 10 minutes,” Rev. Gibson wrote. “In fact, even at the Last Supper, one member of the original band of Jesus' followers was already engaged in subverting his agenda and imperilling his person.” …

And though the essay acknowledges the negatives of schism—“constantly living in a state of brokenness and … institutional rivalry”—Rev. Gibson can see the upside. “The Reformation was not merely the victory of ‘good’ Protestants over ‘bad’ Catholics,” he wrote. “In the long run, it was the restructuring in worship, thought, devotion, and government of Western Christianity… If schism led to the remaking of the Church, however imperfectly, I am not afraid of it.” The three major Protestant churches in the United States that split over slavery in the 19th century is also an example in which schism was the right route, he said. “Should the Northerners have capitulated and said slavery is all right after all? I don't think so?”

But Rev. Stephen Andrews, of president of Anglican-affiliated Thorneloe University in Sudbury, said that schism can rarely be seen as a positive. “It’s like divorce: You can look at a divorce and say there are good things to come out of it, but how do you answer the question, was it worth it? And what have you lost in the process? And once it happens,” he added, “as with the Protestant Reformation, it opens the possibility it may happen again and again. It’s been remarkable that the Anglican Church has been as cohesive as it’s been for so long, especially when you look at other Protestant denominations, which are rife with schism.”

I am not sure that I would want to grace Paul Gibson with the title “theologian”. However, or a generation his liberal, revisionist voice is one that has been listened to by the senior hierarchy of the Anglican Church of Canada, and the Canadian Book of Alternative Services is a liturgical reflection of his empty theology. On the other hand, he is right, and Gene Robinson and others have said it before him, that there are things worse than schism—heresy, for one!

You can find the whole article here. Paul Gibson’s original article, found in the Anglican Church of Canada’s website under “Stories of Faith: Share Your Joy” (how’s that for euphemism/“Newspeak”?) is here.

The Anglican Province of South East Asia speaks

Statement by the Synod of The Province of the Anglican Church in South East Asia
(released 18 March 2008)

1. The SYNOD of the Province of the Anglican Church in South East Asia, meeting in Kuching, Sarawak, Malaysia, 27 - 28 February 2008,

2. RECALLED that the Lambeth Conference 1998 Resolution 1.10 on Human Sexuality expresses the mind of the Communion, as further endorsed in the Statement of the Primates’ Meeting (Lambeth, 15-16 October 2003) “as having moral force and commanding the respect of the Communion as its present position on these issues.” The Diocese of New Westminster, Canada (DNWC) authorized the Public Rite of Blessing for those in same sex relationship (May 2003) and the 74th General Convention of ECUSA confirmed the election of a priest in active same-sex relationship to the episcopate (May 2003), clearly against the letter and spirit of the abovesaid Resolution. Of particular grief was TEC’s decision to proceed with the consecration of Gene Robinson (Nov 2003) notwithstanding the unanimous agreement and plea of the Primates (Oct 2003) that if they go ahead with the decision, “the future of the Communion itself will be put in jeopardy” and that it will “tear the fabric of our Communion at its deepest level.”

3. NOTED TEC’s and DNWC’s further failure to adequately adhere or respond to the call for repentance by The Windsor Report (2004), the Communique of the Primates’ Meeting at Dromantine (Feb 2005) and in particular the various requirements in the most recent Communiqué of the Primates’ Meeting at Dar es Salam, Tanzania (Feb 2007) i.e. that TEC to unequivocally comply with moratoria on the consecration of persons in same-sex unions and on authorising any Rite of Blessing for same-sex unions, to cease all legal action against those who feel unable to accept the direct ministry of their bishop or Presiding Bishop, and that TEC make provision for a Primatial Pastoral Council and Pastoral Scheme for pastoral care;

4. AM DISAPPOINTED that while the Archbishop of Canterbury has not invited Gene Robinson to the Lambeth Conference 2008, invitations have been extended to TEC bishops who approved of and participated in the consecration of Gene Robinson. On the other hand, the Archbishop of Canterbury has failed to invite bishops consecrated by some Provinces outside TEC to address the pastoral exigencies in North America. These pastoral exigencies have been exacerbated by inaction on the part of the leadership of the Communion and TEC in effecting the agreed measures for a “Primatial Pastoral Council” and a “Pastoral Scheme”.

5. REMEMBERED the many Windsor-compliant dioceses and parishes especially within TEC and the Anglican Church of Canada as they continue to face canonical and juridical pressures from their own respective national and diocesan bodies as a consequence of their desire to remain true to the orthodox Anglican position with respect to issues of faith and order and to be in faithful fellowship within the Anglican Communion;

6. WAS MINDFUL of our deep desire to provide encouragement to, express support for, and be in solidarity and undivided fellowship with those orthodox bishops within the Anglican Communion who for these and their own principled reasons are not in a position or are otherwise unable to attend the Lambeth Conference 2008;

7. ACKNOWLEDGED the critical role played by the Anglican churches within the Global South in preserving, protecting and defending orthodoxy and anchoring the Anglican Communion in the historic faith and order once delivered to the saints, expressed essentially in our partaking of the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church;

8. VALUED the significant contributions made by the leadership of the Anglican churches within the Global South in the drafting of the Anglican Covenant, which is the only commonly agreed and acceptable basis to frame the future of the Anglican Communion;

9. WAS ENCOURAGED by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s emphasis in his Advent Letter (12 Dec 2007) that “acceptance of the invitation (to Lambeth Conference 2008) must be taken as implying willingness to work with those aspects of the Conference’s agenda that relate to implementing the recommendations of Windsor, including the development of a covenant”;

10. CONSIDERED the need to provide strong active participation in the discussion and debate on the acceptance and adoption of the proposed Anglican Covenant at Lambeth 2008, and thereafter, to expeditiously and definitively conclude the task of defining and explicating publicly the common standard of faith and order, proper accountability and discipline within the Anglican Communion; and

11. CHERISHED the unity and collegiality of the House of Bishops, and also of the Synod of the Province of the Anglican Church in South East Asia;

Hereby:

1. encourages the bishops of our Province to participate in the Lambeth Conference 2008 yet also fully understands and respects the decision of some who for their own principled reasons may choose not to attend the Lambeth Conference 2008;

2. supports our bishops in fully and actively expressing our on-going concern for the issues and challenges facing the Anglican Communion, and our continued participation in and commitment to the position of the Global South; and

3. gives support for such appropriate further action on the part of our House of Bishops as they may among themselves decide in order to give full effect to this Statement, and to report any such further action taken to the Provincial Synod and/or Provincial Standing Committee as soon as practicable for ratification.

I am very encouraged by this statement, published today by Global South Anglican.

Diminishing Hopes for one Primate

From Global South Anglican: Bishop Mouneer Anis reflects on the Joint Standing Committee (JSC) meeting, 29 February – 4 March.

By the time I finished the meetings of the JSC, I realised that I lost many of the hopes which I had before the meeting. Several friends discouraged me to attend the JSC meeting but I insisted to go as I don’t believe in withdrawal. Jesus is our best example in this regard. He spoke the truth boldly everywhere He went. Some accepted the truth, some refused and some wanted to murder Him, but He never stopped speaking the truth and meeting His friends as well as His enemies.

My hopes diminished for the following reasons:

• I cannot see any desire to follow things through as decided before.
The Windsor Report (TWR) recommendations, which was accepted by everyone since it was produced in 2004 is a very good example. These recommendations were affirmed during the Primates meeting in 2005, everyone waited for TEC and Canada to respond. TEC’s responses were unclear and the Primates at Dar es Salam requested a clear response by the 30th of September. The response was clearly inadequate as Archbishop Rowan mentioned in his Advent letter. What action did we take or recommend in the JSC meeting? The answer is nothing. Moreover, the very people who cause the current crisis are invited to Lambeth Conference and this contradicts with TWR as will as Dar es Salam recommendations. This widens the gap and distrust between the two sides within the Communion.

This makes me ask, “Are we ready to take decisions as Anglican Councils”? I do appreciate the “via media” in worship but not when we are dealing with a crisis. When will we become decisive?

• The first thing that upset me is that while we emphasise the importance of listening, very little time was given to discussing the important issues. Such issues were pushed to the last day of the meeting. I had expected that the very issues that are tearing the Communion apart would be given more time and priority.

I came to listen and share but there was not enough time for that. I expected that we would engage in constructive listening and discussion, especially while the Presiding Bishop of TEC was with us. How can we expect our congregations to be involved in the listening process when we ourselves are not?

• While the presence of the Presiding Bishop of TEC was so important during discussions, her presence as we decided about resolutions of assessment of the response of TEC inhibited other members from speaking freely. This was clear from the comments of some other members outside the meetings.

• I was shocked when the time line of the covenant process was presented. The plan that it would be enacted in 2015 gives the impression that we are NOT in a state of crisis and that there is no desire to move towards a solution. In my opinion, if we wait until 2015 or even 2012 the Communion will be fragmented. If we truly are in a situation that makes us “seriously concerned”, as mentioned in the JSC resolution, how can we wait another four or seven years?

• I was also very surprised that some now speak of the ambiguity of the Windsor recommendations and the meaning of “moratorium”. Where have these people been since 2004? Why were these questions not raised in Dar es Salam?

I am sorry to share my heartaches in this report, but I hope that this will encourage all of us in the Communion to pray especially for Archbishop Rowan and the Windsor Continuing Group so that the right decisions would be taken.

I realise that the forthcoming Lambeth Conference may add to my disappointment but I am determined to go, to listen and share with an open heart and firm stand.

This is truly a cause for sorrow. On the one hand we see the hierarchy of the Episcopal Church moving with such swiftness that they do not even observe Canon Law. On the other we have a Communion bogged down by bureaucracy, indecision, and (dare I say it?) deliberate subterfuge. The combination could be explosive and lethal.

Bishop Duncan Formally Responds to Presiding Bishop

From the Diocese of Pittsburgh website:

Bishop Robert Duncan responded on March 14 to allegations that he had “abandoned the communion of this church”. The allegations, made by a small group of priests and laity of the diocese and supported by the chancellor to the Presiding Bishop, were forwarded to Bishop Duncan on January 15 along with a cover letter from Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori. The Presiding Bishop’s letter stated that the Title IV Review Committee had “certified” the allegation, and that despite the failure of The Episcopal Church’s three senior bishops to agree to inhibit Bishop Duncan, she intended to forward the matter to the House of Bishops.

In his response, Bishop Duncan rejected the claim that he had abandoned communion. “I state that I consider myself ‘fully subject to the doctrine, discipline and worship of this Church,’” he wrote. He went on to say. “I have striven to follow the Lord Jesus with all my heart and mind and soul and strength, all the while relying on God’s grace to accomplish what my sinfulness and brokenness otherwise prevent.” And “I have kept my ordination vows – all of them – to the best of my ability, including the vow I made on 28 October 1972 to ‘banish and drive away all strange and erroneous doctrines contrary to God’s Word’”.

Bishop Duncan’s full response is available here as a pdf file.

Supplementing the response, John h. Lewis, Jr., attorney for Bishop Duncan, also wrote a letter to David Booth Beers, the chancellor to the Presiding Bishop.

That letter is available here as a pdf file.

On the Matter of Deposing Bishops at a Time of Communion Self-Assessment

The Anglican Communion Institute weighs in on the recent actions taken by the U.S. House of Bishops…

The current public dispute over the canonical legality of the Episcopal Church’s House of Bishops’ recent vote to depose Bishops Schofield and Cox amounts at best to a severe embarrassment to the Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House itself; at worst, it exposes a travesty of Christian justice and prudence. How was it possible that the process and definition of terms demanded by the canons were not openly examined, discussed, and agreed upon prior to this vote, so as to avoid the prima facie plausible accusations now being made that appropriate consents were not in fact given? Indeed, given the intrinsic seriousness of the matter—the deposition of a bishop—and the overwrought character of the moment within both TEC and the Anglican Communion and within which the deposition process has unfolded, and the general ecclesiological stakes at play within the Communion at large that are caught up in this moment, it is simply unconscionable that such preparation was not carried through. Trust in the good will and/or good sense of our leadership is no longer just frayed; it has been torn asunder. And the result of this dispute and the failures of good order leading up to it will inevitably be the further erosion of TEC’s standing in the public’s eye and in the Communion’s councils. Although some will take this as vindication of their hostility towards TEC, it can only bring shame to the Christian gospel as a whole, given that the name of Christ is being abused in the process…

In this case, a central clue as to what is going on was given by Bp. Schofield’s March 12 Statement in response to the vote to depose him on the basis of his having “abandoned the Communion of the Church” (Canon IV.9.2): “I have not abandoned the Faith,” Schofield stated; “I resigned from the American House of Bishops and have been received into the House of Bishops of the Southern Cone. Both Houses are members of the Anglican Communion. They are not—or should not be—two separate Churches.” Bp. Schofield’s point is straightforward: if the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone is not a “separate church” from TEC, how can he have “abandoned” the “Communion” of TEC’s own ecclesial existence? Does in fact TEC “recognize” the Southern Cone as an Anglican Church with which she is in communion? In what sense, then, is “abandonment” taken? …

The issue of communion and the recognizability of churches has already surfaced as a canonical issue in 2000, with regards to the AMiA and those clergy who left TEC to go under the Provinces of Rwanda and (at the time) South-East Asia. Had these clergy “abandoned the Communion of the Church”? There was disagreement at the time, with the Presiding Bishop’s Chancellor even then vigorously and sometimes angrily demanding that Title IV.9 be applied, while others (including one of the present writers) argued that, although there was a serious dispute taking place, the churches in question were indeed “one”, and that the appropriate process was to issue the departing clergy Letters Dimissory. The disagreement of 8 years ago has not been resolved, we might add, on either side. For it appears that not only do the leaders of TEC not recognize some parts of the Anglican Communion as “in communion”, but neither do some of these churches recognize TEC as truly a “church in communion”, and for a variety of reasons, theological and disciplinary. After all, when Letters Dimissory were sent, they were never acknowledged nor formally received. Indeed, if TEC and the Province of the Southern Cone are not in fact “two separate churches”, what exactly is going on from either side in this dispute? This is the territory of ecclesiological quicksand.

But given this fact, why would one wish to carry forward disciplinary proceedings on the basis of somehow having resolved the question of mutual ecclesial recognizability in one's own mind before the fact? The Presiding Bishop, her advisors, and the House of Bishops (or least a significant part of it) are plowing ahead with putative judgments about what is an Anglican Church, and who is in communion with whom and on what basis—even in the face of clear and admitted and contradictory views about this among Anglicans including American Anglicans. Do they really believe that this can do anything but add fuel to the fire? The current embarrassment or travesty, whichever it is, is proof that the attempt to cut the Gordian knot of Anglican ecclesiological ferment, disarray, and reordering—something many of us believe and pray will be a blessing and not a curse—will lead to nothing more than further confusion and the stoking of the flames of mutual hostility.

There are already accusations that have been publicly expressed that the ongoing process leading to a vote over Bp. Duncan’s deposition is fatally flawed by a failure to abide by canonical order, not to mention substantive truth. The situation in the Diocese of San Joaquin, in which the Presiding Bishop has intervened through the imposition of new oversight, in flagrant disregard of a legitimately functioning Standing Committee for that diocese, rises to the level of potential and serious canonical violation in its own right. Even if it turns out that, in both these cases as well as in the case of the latest vote for deposition, a persuasive case is eventually made that due process was followed, the failure to make that case prior to highly questionable actions displays an irresponsible lack of concern for the pastoral needs of the church and the consciences of the flock of Christ.

We have urged previously and we so urge again: that “TEC and other Anglican bishops pray for and take action so that this process of depositional discipline pauses indefinitely. They should do this for the sake of genuinely seeking discernment and resolution as to the ordering of our common life as Anglicans. There is nothing that legally demands that the process be carried through at this point and in the manner now laid out. There is every Christian reason to work for some other outcome.”

I always welcome the carefully reasoned statements made by the ACI, and this one is no disappointment. The House of Bishops has acted entirely ultra vires. But is it still possible to stop the wheels of the Episcopalian revisionist juggernaut from turning and attempting to crush everything that stands in the way of their agenda? The whole statement may be found here.

London Times Cryptic Crossword for March 16

Here is this week’s puzzle. We’ll see how long we have to work on it to tease it out this time. Once again, just click on it to get the full-sized, printable version. If you have any problems with this, as one reader did last week, please leave a message and I will try to correct things.

Crossword Solution

We found last week’s cryptic especially challenging. My brother and I worked together on it and didn’t manage to come up with the final word until Friday evening. Here is what we arrived at:

Deposition Votes Failed to Achieve Canonically Required Majority

A new revelation, brought to light in the Living Church, of more jiggery-pokery in the upper echelons of the Episcopal Church:

Slightly more than one-third of all bishops eligible voted to depose bishops John-David Schofield and William J. Cox during the House of Bishops’ spring retreat, far fewer than the 51 percent required by the canons.

The exact number is impossible to know, because both resolutions were approved by voice vote. Only 131 bishops registered for the meeting March 7-12 at Camp Allen, and at least 15 of them left before the business session began on Wednesday. There were 294 members of the House of Bishops entitled to vote on March 12.

When questioned about canonical inconsistencies during a telephone press conference at the conclusion of the meeting, Bishop Michael Curry of North Carolina said the bishops had relied on advice provided to them by canonical experts, and did not examine canonical procedure during plenary debate prior to the votes to depose bishops Schofield and Cox…

Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori was questioned about the history of the canonical proceedings against Bishop Cox. At first she said during the press conference that she had not sought the canonically required consent of the three senior bishops of the church for permission to inhibit Bishop Cox pending his trial. However Title IV, Canon 9, sections 1-2 do not describe a procedure for deposing a bishop who has not first been inhibited.

Later in the press conference, Bishop Jefferts Schori clarified and extended her remarks, saying she had been “unable to get the consent of the three senior bishops last spring. That’s why we didn’t bring it to the September meeting” of the House of Bishops. One of the three senior bishops with jurisdiction confirmed to The Living Church that his consent to inhibit Bishop Cox was never sought.

It seems that things have reached new depths of desperation (and deception) in the Episcopal Church. First it was Scripture that was tossed out. Now it is our own canonical processes. What will be next? The full report is here.

Lambeth invitations reviewed

From the Church of England Newspaper, via TitusOneNine:

The question of Lambeth Conference invitations will be reviewed by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s Windsor Continuation Group (WCG), sources familiar with its deliberations tell The Church of England Newspaper. Chartered last month by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams, the WCG will take a second look at the decision not to extend invitations to the African-consecrated American bishops of Kenya, Uganda, Rwanda and Nigeria, and may also discuss the question of Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire’s non-invitation.

Were Dr Williams to accept advice to broaden the Lambeth Conference invitation list, “that would change everything,” one global south leader told CEN, and prevent Lambeth from being a “bust”.

Dr Williams’ decision not to invite Bishop Martyn Minns of Cana and Bishop Chuck Murphy of the AMiA and their suffragans contributed to the decision by the Churches of Nigeria and Rwanda to decline the invitation to attend Lambeth. The Archbishop of Kenya has announced that he will not attend the July 16-Aug 3 conference after his two suffragans, Bishops Bill Atwood and Bill Murdoch, were overlooked by Lambeth. The Kenyan House of Bishops meets later this spring and will review its position at that time, sources in the Kenyan church tell CEN.

At its New Orleans meeting last year, the US House of Bishops asked Presiding Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori to treat with Dr Williams, and find a way to bring Bishop Robinson to Lambeth. Acting on behalf of the presiding bishop, the bishops of Northern Indiana, Vermont and Wyoming spoke with Dr Williams’ aide, Mr Chris Smith and ACC Secretary General Canon Kenneth Kearon on five occasions. The three reported they had sought to find a way for Bishop Robinson to “have the opportunity to pray with other bishops at Lambeth,” to have an opportunity to “build relationships,” and that he be given a “voice at the table” during the discussions “on human sexuality”.

Their approach was unsuccessful and they reported that a “full invitation is not possible”, for the New Hampshire bishop. Nor would he be able to participate in the bishops’ retreat or study groups. While he could not be an “observer” at Lambeth, he was offered the opportunity by the organizing committee to be part of the Lambeth Marketplace—a venue where vendors historically displayed their wares…

Finding a way of bringing those boycotting the Conference back into the life of the Communion is a priority, sources tell CEN, and that will include looking once again at the invitation question. While the WCG may recommend several courses of action to address the dysfunction within the Communion, the question of “who comes to Lambeth?” is for Dr Williams alone to decide, one global south primate noted.

You can read it all here. I wonder if things really will change. While I understand their reasons for the boycott, it would be excellent if the bishops now threatening to be absent from Lambeth were to participate.

Bible portraits: Palm Sunday (Part 4)

It seemed to be no time at all before we were on our way down the slope of Mount of Olives, with the massive sun-bleached walls of the holy city facing us just across the valley. To our surprise there were people there to meet us. Some of them spread their cloaks out on the road for the donkey to walk on. Others had palm branches in their hands and were waving them wildly. There were exuberant shouts of “Blessed is the king who comes in the name of the Lord!” “Hosanna to the Son of David!” “Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”

Now it was all coming clear. The colt, the cloaks, the palm branches, the shouts of “Hosanna!” It was finally happening. The Lord was going to set himself up as ruler of Israel. There had been attempts before to proclaim Jesus as king—I remember it had happened by the Sea of Galilee just after he had fed that hungry crowd of more than five thousand people. But he had always resisted them in the past. He had often talked about waiting for the right time. Perhaps now this was it. One of us (I don’t remember now who it was) reached up into one of the palm trees by the side of the road and tore off some branches. In a moment we too were waving palms and shouting along with the crowd, “Hosanna to the king!” It was a glorious moment.

In the midst of the crowd we could make out some whose somber expressions indicated that they were not prepared to take part in the celebration. Leaning forward from the crowd they tugged at Jesus’ cloak to divert his attention. “Teacher,” they protested. “Make this nonsense stop! If this continues into the city and the authorities see us, it will be the death of us. They won’t tolerate anything that bears even a hint of rebellion.”

But the Lord was not to be put off course. “I tell you,” he said—I haven’t forgotten the words—“I tell you, if they keep quiet, the stones will take up the chorus.” So it was that, laughing and cheering we continued our way down the steep slope of the Kidron Valley.

It was the happiest, most exultant of occasions, and we were foolish enough to think that it would never end. Of course it did. Within days those glad shouts of “Hosanna!” had turned to angry screams of “Crucify!” The bright sun of that Sunday morning gave way to the darkened skies which clung to Golgotha like a pall as the Lord hung dying on a cross. What shall I say about that day? How weak and short-lived is the voice of human praise! How shallow and fickle is our faith in the one we once hailed as our King!

We thought we had him figured out. Again and again we imagined that we knew his mind. Yet right to the last it was only he who really was aware of what was taking place, only he who knew that what he was riding to was not a throne of gold but a cross of wood. How far beyond our human reason is that love which led him to ride triumphantly to his own death! How inscrutable his compassion to offer up his life for one such as me! The praises we shouted on that day are but a faint echo of the joy which now rings in heaven and through eternity:

“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain
to receive power and wealth
and wisdom and strength
and honor and glory and praise!”

“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power
for ever and ever!”
Amen.

Bible portraits: Palm Sunday (Part 3)

All of the day’s events were racing through our minds as we pushed on towards Bethany. There we stayed with Lazarus and his two sisters, Mary and Martha. Lazarus is a whole other story, and I don’t have time even to begin to get into that now. Martha could not be outdone as a cook and after the long walk from Jericho we were ready for a hearty meal.

As we sat down for supper, though, a strange series of events began to unfold. Mary brought out an enormous jar of expensive perfume and poured it out on the Lord’s feet till it dripped onto the floor. Then she began to wipe it with her hair.

We all thought this more than a little odd. But it was Judas who objected most strenuously. The fragrance had filled the room when he stood up in angry criticism. “Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.”

“Leave her alone,” came the reply. Then the Lord said something very peculiar that sent shivers down our spines—something about the perfume being for his burial. Over the past few weeks we had heard him express these morbid thoughts about suffering and death. We always tried to put them out of our minds but I’ll tell you, it made us worry, and it was a long time before any of us got to sleep that night thinking about it.

The next morning the sun streamed into our room bright and clear. We were ready for a good breakfast, but the Lord had an errand for a couple of us to do. “I’d like you to go over to Bethphage,” he told us. “Just as you enter, you will find a colt which had never been ridden. Untie it and bring it to me. And by the way,” he added, “if anyone asks you why you are untying it, tell him, ‘The Lord needs it.’”

By now we were accustomed to the Lord asking us to do unconventional things, so we didn’t ask any questions. Bethphage was only a few minutes’ walk away and sure enough, there we found the young donkey, just as he had said, right next to its mother.

As we were untying it, someone came out and asked us what we were doing. “Uh, the Lord needs it,” we replied hesitantly and no more questions were asked.

Moments later we were back in Bethany where we found the rest of them waiting for us. They were ready to leave. There was no time for us to have our breakfast. We quickly threw some of our cloaks over the donkey’s back, helped Jesus on top and began the last leg of our journey, the two or three miles to Jerusalem.

Lambeth invitation ‘not possible’ for Robinson

A report from Episcopal Life Online:

The House of Bishops was informed March 10 that full invitation is “not possible” from the Archbishop of Canterbury to include Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire as a participant in this summer’s Lambeth Conference of Anglican bishops.

Robinson, addressing the House, urged the other bishops of the Episcopal Church to participate fully in the conference, and thanked all who are willing to “stay at the table”. Robinson told the House that he respectfully declined an invitation to be present in the conference's “Marketplace” exhibit section. Robinson confirmed for ENS that he plans to be in Canterbury during the July 16-August 3 once-a-decade gathering, but not as an official conference participant or observer.

Word about the invitation came in a report from three U.S. bishops, speaking in the House’s late-afternoon session, who worked with Lambeth Palace staff to seek provision for Robinson’s participation in the conference. The House of Bishops is in session through March 12 at Camp Allen in Navasota, Texas.

Robinson, an openly gay man ordained a bishop in 2003, was informed last year that an invitation to the Lambeth Conference would not be extended to him at that time. More detailed reports will follow from Episcopal News Service and the Episcopal Church’s Office of Public Affairs here.

Links to the documents referenced in this article can be found in Episcopal Life’s original posting here.

Bible portraits: Palm Sunday (Part 2)

Just down the road, not far inside the gates of Jericho itself, another surprise awaited us. Suddenly, for no reason that any of us could think of, the Lord stopped again. We were under a huge sycomore-fig tree which had obviously stood in its place for many long years. He just stood there, staring up into its vast, spreading branches. It was far too early in the season for there to be any fruit on it, so what was the point of looking for any? Then we began to see what he saw. There was one branch of the tree where all the leaves were shaking. When we peered in a little harder, we could just make out someone sitting in the crook, just where the branch joined the trunk. It was a grown man!

“Zacchæus,” the Lord said to him. (To this day I can’t figure out how he ever knew his name.) “Zacchæus, come down from there right now. I’m planning to spend the afternoon at your house.”

You should have seen the way the little man managed to make his way down the thick trunk and onto the ground. “It would be an honour, sir,” he said, bowing low before the Lord and dusting the bits of leaf and bark off his clothes. “Let me lead the way.”

Around me I could hear mutterings of discontent. This Zacchæus, it seemed, was the local tax collector. He had made most of his wealth by soaking the local people for all they were worth in the name of Rome and then keeping most for himself. If it were not for his squad of Roman guards (or should I say goons?) his life would not have been worth a denarius. What, they asked, was Jesus doing with this turncoat, with this oppressor of the Jewish people? They had heard that he always stood up for common folk. I must admit I shared in their puzzlement and was kind of disappointed that Jesus did not at least take time to explain his interest in this tax collector.

It did not take us long to reach Zacchæus’ house. There we were all treated to a feast fit for a king. From the other end of the table I could see that the Lord had engaged our host in an animated exchange. Over the happy roar of all the other conversations in the room I was unable to catch more than the occasional word or two. Yet I could see on Zacchæus’ face alternating expressions of annoyance, surprise and finally what could not be mistaken for anything but pure, inexpressible joy.

In a moment he was clapping his pudgy little hands. “Quiet, everybody. Quiet, please! I have an announcement to make…” He said some words about what a deeply lonely unhappy a man he had been and about how he had learned what little satisfaction was to be found in money. Then he turned to Jesus and said, “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything, I will pay back four times the amount.”

You could literally feel the hush that followed. It filled the room. No one knew what to say. People just stared at one another in amazement. It was the Lord himself who broke the silence. “Today,” he said, “salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a child of Abraham. For the Son of Man came to sake and to save what was lost.”

To seek and to save what was lost. That was why he had come. And what we learned that afternoon was that it was just as possible to be rich and lost as it was to be poor and lost. Whether you were a blind beggar sitting by the roadside or the owner of a mountain of cash or somewhere in between, we all need what Jesus came to bring. We had seen it with our own eyes, seen people totally changed, and nothing gives me more joy than to talk about it.

Bible portraits: Palm Sunday (Part 1)

It will forever be etched in my memory, that day when we entered Jerusalem for the last time. The heat of the spring sun beat down upon us as we made our way up and down the slopes along the steep, winding road to Jerusalem. As we approached the great city a sense of anticipation, of exhilaration, surged through our veins.

Looking back on it all, I cannot put my finger now on what we were really expecting. The days past had certainly had their excitements. There had been the blind man just outside Jericho. How will I ever forget his pathetic cry, just barely audible over the stir of the crowd? “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!” Some folk tried to shut him up, but he refused to pay any attention to their threats. He just cried all the louder, “Jesus, Son of David, have mercy on me!”

I knew what the Lord would do all along. He never was one to pass by a person in need. When he heard the man’s voice he stopped dead in his tracks, and all the crowd with him. “Bring him over here,” he said to us. And so we went over and helped the man to his feet. We could hear his knees crack as they straightened out. With his bony hand he grasped onto my arm and haltingly we half-walked, half-stumbled our way over to where the Lord was. “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked, as he looked deep into the man’s lifeless and impenetrable eyes.

“Lord, that I may receive my sight…”

“Receive your sight,” he said to him in a manner that seemed so matter-of-fact, as though it were nothing unusual. “Your faith has healed you.” Even as the words were still on his lips I could see the opaque dullness of the man’s eyes melt into a sparkle. The look of absolute wonderment spreading across his face was enough to tell us all that a miracle had happened.

The next moment we were all praising God for what had happened to the blind man (or I should say, the man who had up till that time been blind). He himself couldn’t stop jumping up and down and coming up to each of us and staring for a moment or two into our faces as though he had lost hold of his senses.

London Times Crytpic Crossword for 9 March

Here is this week’s brain teaser from the Sunday London Times. Just click on it for a larger, printable version.

Crossword Solution

Here is my solution to last Sunday’s London Times cryptic crossword puzzle:

Archbishop will refuse communion to pro-choice politicians

More Canadian news on the abortion issue, this time from the Victoria Times Colonist:

Ottawa’s new Catholic archbishop says he will refuse communion to any politician who “obstinately” supports access to abortion, but only if he or she cannot be persuaded to stand down. Terrence Prendergast was speaking to Canwest News Service yesterday, expanding on remarks he made at a recent public question-and-answer session.

A member of the audience asked him if the church should invoke Canon Law 915, the disciplinary measures of Catholic law. He told the crowd: “I think if a bishop is going to involve Canon 915, he has to know [the politicians], and speak with them or have the priest speak with them. Ultimata that come down from on high don’t help anybody. As a Jesuit principle, I have to put the best possible interpretation on my neighbour’s proposition, then speak to him about it, and only then draw the line and say, ‘Look, given your stubbornness on this position, I think you should not publicly receive communion until you change your mind.’ ”

Since his arrival nine months ago, Prendergast has not met many politicians, but said: “When I do get to know them, I will discuss it.” Many elected officials believe they must represent their constituents’ point of view, not their own, but the archbishop doesn’t buy this. “There needs to be a balance. At least bring [Catholic values] into the equation.”

It’s not enough to say that faith is a private matter, he said. “At the end of the line, I would have to say, ‘Don’t pretend you’re in community with the Catholic Church, because that’s what communion is, a coming together.’ I think somebody has to come out and say that.”

Three cheers for the archbishop for repudiating the notion that faith is a private matter that shouldn’t inform political decisions. There is more to this story here.

Canada abortion debate rekindled as bill passes

From the Vancouver Sun:

The long-dormant issue in Canada of when life begins has reemerged with the backing by the House of Commons of a bill that would make it a crime to cause the death of an unborn child when a pregnant woman is attacked. The House gave approval in principle on Wednesday evening to the “Unborn Victims of Crime Act”, a bill opponents say is the thin edge of the wedge in reimposing abortion restrictions, but which proponents say merely protects unborn children who are wanted by their parents .

The bill is the private initiative of Conservative Member of Parliament Ken Epp and won the vote of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper and some, but not all, members of three of the four parties in the House. “It’s plainly the start of the recriminalization of abortion, and that’s why the NDP opposes it,” Jack Layton, leader of the left-leaning New Democratic Party, told reporters outside the House on Thursday.

The bill says the argument “that the child is not a human being” would not have merit as a legal defense, but it also specifies that the bill would not apply to abortion to which the mother has consented.

Epp said it was a red herring to talk about abortion. “It has nothing to do with it. It specifically excludes elective abortion,” he said. He said his bill should be attractive to proponents of choice since it is designed to protect the babies of women who have chosen to carry their pregnancy to term.

The whole article is here.

Bishop of Jerusalem to attend GAFCON

Bishop Suheil Dawani of Jerusalem recently visited Australia. Here is part of an interview he gave with the Melbourne Anglican:

Another senior bishop has signalled his intent to be involved in the controversial Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON) gathering to be held in the Diocese of Jerusalem before the Lambeth Conference this year. This surprising participant is the Bishop of Jerusalem himself, who pleaded with GAFCON organisers last month to hold the event elsewhere.

“It’s happening, they are coming,” said Bishop Suheil Dawani during a visit to Australia in February. “I will be there. I cannot ignore such a gathering. But I’ll give them our message of unity, of how the church must also be united, and of the importance of our ministry in Jerusalem and all over the world.”

Bishop Dawani told TMA that he is nervous about the impact of such a controversial conference in an area which is already beset by violent disputes and hardship. The Diocese of Jerusalem, made up of twenty-nine parishes, covers five countries – Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel, and Palestine, all of which are familiar with division and hostility. Thirty-four institutions of the Anglican Church provide vital health care, education, aged care and disability care to the region, as well as care and hope to people who are traumatised by the uncertainty and violence around them, particularly in Palestine.

“We minister through our institutions,” said Bishop Dawani. Through hospitals such as Al Ahli in Gaza and St Luke’s in Nablus, the church is able to witness to all, regardless of their religion. Through the mixed faith schools, Christian and Muslim students are brought together to learn and to make friends and build relationships.

“We are dealing with human beings in need, and we don’t differentiate in our ministry,” he said. “We give our service to those who need it. That is part of our Lord’s example – when he preached, when he healed, he didn’t differentiate, he included everybody in his care.”

One of the most important things that these services bring to the people, Bishop Dawani said, is hope. “If you lose hope, then you lose everything,” he said. “I know that the situation [in the Middle East] is not always good, with untold violence on both sides. We give the people a message of hope, that they are human beings, that they are dignified. In this, the message of the Gospel is very important, and also how we treat them, how we respect them, and help them. Many people at some time or another are in need of something, and we can show them that we are ready to help them.”

The rest of the interview is here.

God’s Country

This article on Nigeria, from the March issue of The Atlantic, just came to my attention. It presents a disturbingly different portrait of Peter Akinola from what I have read in the past. This is not surprising, as its author is Eliza Griswold, daughter of the former presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in the US (and no friend of Archbishop Akinola).

Kendall Harmon (titusonenine) writes, “It is not a good article because the research is so poor. The liberals are using it to cream Archbishop Akinola. I debated posting it but right now am leaning no.” So as you read it, take it with a large dose of salt.

Nigeria is Africa’s most populous country, with 140 million people (one-seventh of all Africans), and it’s one of the few nations divided almost evenly between Christians and Muslims. Blessed with the world’s 10th-largest oil reserves, it is also one of the continent’s richest and most influential powers—as well as one of its most corrupt democracies. Last year’s presidential election in particular—in which President Olusegun Obasanjo, an evangelical Christian, handed power to a northern Muslim, President Umaru Yar’Adua—was a farce. Ballot boxes were stuffed by thugs or carted off empty by armed heavies in the pay of political candidates. Across the country, political power is a passport to wealth: according to Human Rights Watch, anywhere from $4 billion to $8 billion in government money has been embezzled annually for the last eight years. The state has all but abdicated its responsibility for the welfare of its people, roughly half of whom live on less than $1 a day.

In this vacuum, religion has become a powerful source of identity. Northern Nigeria has one of Africa’s oldest and most devout Islamic communities, which was galvanized, like many others, in the 1980s by the global Islamic reawakening that followed the Iranian revolution. For Christians, too, in Nigeria, there’s been a revolution: high birthrates and aggressive evangelization over the past century have increased the number of believers from 176,000, or 1.1 percent of the early-20th-century population, to more than 51 million, or more than a third now. Thanks to this explosive growth, the demographic and geographic center of global Christianity will have moved, by 2050, to northern Nigeria, within the Muslim world.

No one knows what this shift will yield, in part because neither faith is a monolith. Indeed, the most overlooked aspect of this global religious encounter may be that the competition within the faiths—between Pentecostals and orthodox Christians, or between Islamic groups that want to engage with or reject the modern world—is just as important as the competition between the faiths. But it’s also true that the fastest-growing forms of faith on both sides tend to be the most effervescent and absolute. They promote a system of living in this world that promises heaven in the next, they see salvation in stark binary terms, and they believe they have a global mandate to spread their exclusive brand of faith…

At the time of the massacre [of more than 600 Muslims in Yelwa in central Nigeria], Archbishop Peter Akinola was the president of the Christian Association of  Nigeria, whose membership was implicated in the killings. He has since lost his bid for another term but, as primate of the Anglican Church of Nigeria, he is still the leader of 18 million Anglicans. He is a colleague of my father, who was the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church in America from 1997 to 2006. But the American Episcopals’ election of an openly homosexual bishop in 2003, which Archbishop Akinola denounced as “satanic,” created distance between them. When I arrived in 2006 in the capital of Abuja to see the archbishop, his office door was locked. Its complicated buzzing-in system was malfunctioning, and he was trapped inside. Finally, after several minutes, the angry buzzes stopped and I could hear a man behind the door rise and come across the floor. The archbishop, in a pale-blue pantsuit and a darker-blue crushed-velvet hat, opened the door.

“My views on Islam are well known: I have nothing more to say,” he said, as we sat down. Archbishop Akinola has repeatedly spoken critically about Islam and liberal Western Protestants, and he was understandably wary of my motives for asking his thoughts. For Akinola, the relationship between liberal Protestants and Islam is straightforward: if Western Christians abandon conservative morals, then the global Church will be weakened in its struggle against Islam. “When you have this attack on Christians in Yelwa, and there are no arrests, Christians become dhimmi, the vocabulary within Islam that allows Christians and Jews to be seen as second-class citizens. You are subject to the Muslims. You have no rights.”

When asked if those wearing name tags that read “Christian Association of Nigeria” had been sent to the Muslim part of Yelwa, the archbishop grinned. “No comment,” he said. “No Christian would pray for violence, but it would be utterly naive to sweep this issue of Islam under the carpet.” He went on, “I’m not out to combat anybody. I’m only doing what the Holy Spirit tells me to do. I’m living my faith, practicing and preaching that Jesus Christ is the one and only way to God, and they respect me for it. They know where we stand. I’ve said before: let no Muslim think they have the monopoly on violence.”

Archbishop Akinola, 63, is a Yoruba, a member of an ethnic group from southwestern Nigeria, where Christians and Muslims coexist peacefully. But the archbishop’s understanding of Islam was forged by his experience in the north, where he watched the persecution of a Christian minority. He was more interested during our interview, though, in talking about the West than about Nigeria.

“People are thinking that Islam is an issue in Africa and Asia, but you in the West are sitting on explosives.” What people in the West don’t understand, he said, “is that what Islam failed to accomplish by the sword in the eighth century, it’s trying to do by immigration so that Muslims become citizens and demand their rights. A Muslim man has four wives; the wives have four or five children each. This is how they turned Christians into a minority in North Africa.”

He went on, “The West has thrown God out, and Islam is filling that vacuum for you, and now your Christian heritage is being destroyed … You people are so afraid of being accused of being Islam-phobic. Consequently everyone recedes and says nothing … Over the years, Christians have been so naive—avoiding politics, economics, and the military because they’re dirty business. The missionaries taught that. Dress in tatters. Wear your bedroom slippers. Be poor. But Christians are beginning to wake up to the fact that money isn’t evil, the love of money is, and it isn’t wrong to have some of it. Neither is politics.”

The whole article is here.

Panel tackles same-sex marriage in Canada

From the Globe and Mail (Canada):

In recent weeks, a growing number of parishes across the country have voted to break ranks with the Anglican Church of Canada in a dispute over theological issues that include the blessing of same-sex unions, which they oppose. So far, 15 parishes have left the national church and sought to place themselves under the authority of a conservative South American archbishop, a move that could lead to even more legal battles over church buildings, which some congregations want to retain.

The increasingly public dispute is just the latest flareup in a long-running heated controversy about same-sex marriage, which was legalized by the former federal Liberal government after a historic Supreme Court judgment. Thousands of same-sex couples have been married since that time.

That’s why globeandmail.com has invited our semi-regular panel from several major faith-based communities and a representative of the atheist/humanist/free thinker groups to debate these questions:

What does your faith/creed/organization say about the issue of same-sex marriage?

Given the Canadian Constitution and Charter of Rights, what accommodation, if any, should be given to religious, or other, organizations which have are deeply-felt theological, historical or other reasons for opposing current laws?

Here is the response from Jennifer Harris, the lone Anglican on the panel, and assistant professor of Christianity and Culture at the University of Toronto. I think it offers a very fair and balanced read of what is happening in the Anglican Church of Canada at present.

In 2002, the Diocese of New Westminster (Vancouver) voted to allow the blessing of same-sex unions — a rite similar to but not identical with holy matrimony — in a limited number of churches. This decision engendered strong reaction. Six parishes began a process to leave the diocese, while others voted to offer said blessings.

Dissent soon grew into outright division, with traditional parishes and clergy in many parts of Canada establishing a new ecclesiastical body called the Anglican Network in Canada, portions of which now claim Episcopal oversight from conservative bishops in Africa and South America (a deviation from the norms of Anglican ecclesial polity).

As the church has struggled with blessing same-sex unions, the country has moved on. Same-sex marriage is now the law of the land. Since churches in Canada perform civil marriages under the aegis of religious rites, ecclesiastical bodies have had to respond.

Some have suggested that they will cease to offer civil marriages if their clergy are required to marry gay couples. Others, such as the United Church of Canada, began to solemnize same-sex marriages as soon as they became legal. The Anglican Church of Canada has not gone either route, at least not yet.

The national body of Canadian Anglicans met last summer, yet did not vote on the blessing of gay marriage (preferring to delay this vote). Instead, it agreed that same-sex blessings do not contradict the core teachings of the Christian faith. This understanding of same-sex relationships places the Canadian church in a distinct minority within worldwide Anglicanism.

Still, the Canadian church will examine the theological questions that arise from same-sex marriage and vote upon them in 2010. Questions arising include conscientious objection to offering the solemnization of same-sex marriage, as well as how to deal with dissenting clergy and parishes. Caution at the national level has been undermined by local activism, however, with dioceses in Montreal, Ottawa, and Niagara voting to allow parishes and clergy to bless same-sex marriages.

This move has become the tipping point for traditionalist clergy and parishes in affected dioceses across the country. Some 15 parishes (approximately 0.5% of 2,800 Anglican congregations in Canada) have now left the fold. More are likely to follow. The opportunity for conversation is quickly dissolving in the face of lawsuits over church property.

Theological discussion of whether same-sex marriages ought to be solemnized in the Anglican Church of Canada will continue for a few years at least, so easy answers remain elusive. The fact remains that Canada is the only province within the Anglican Communion that must deal with legal same-sex marriage. This context has shaped the experience of many Anglicans who are pressing for equal marriage.

Balancing the legal and theological issues, questions of justice and conscience, desire for unity and autonomy, has made this situation extremely difficult for Canadian Anglicans. Unity in diversity has always been the strength of Anglican Christianity, but now such unity has met its match.

You can read the article in its entirety here.

Liberia welcomes new Episcopal bishop

A recent article from the Monrovia, Liberia, Inquirer:

The consecration and enthronement ceremony of the twelfth Resident Bishop of the Episcopal Church of Liberia has taken place in Monrovia, with the Very Rev. Jonathan B.B. Hart taking over as the new Bishop…

Delivering a special sermon at the service, which was graced by members of the diplomatic corps, the judiciary, heads of the Christian community across the country among others, visiting Ghanaian prelate the Rt. Rev. Emmanuel Arongo, reminded the incoming bishop that he was taking over the affairs of the church, when a lot has been lost in the country as a result of the civil war.

Rev. Arongo, who is from Tamale, Ghana, said many in the country are poor not from the physical stand point but in spirit and as a result their desire is to hear the good news; something which he said is a task that the new bishop must meet. Dwelling on the theme, “Christian Call to Serve,” which was drawn from Isaiah 61:1, Bishop Arongo admonished the incoming bishop to preach hope and encouragement so that the lost hopes as a result of the war can be restored.

He reminded Christians that despite of their problems, Jesus Christ, is still there for them; stressing that the Bible, has a lot to give Christians and as such, there is no need for them to worry but to embrace Christ. The Episcopalian prelate urged Bishop Hart to see his new role as a service to assist Christians to find comfort and redirect the minds of those adopted to vices against Christians principles.

He called for unity within the church, reminding the incoming bishop that he should be united with his people so that they too can be united with him in the service of the church; stressing that a house divided can not stand. Rev. Arongo, urged the church to be united more than ever before; adding that if there was never a time that the church was united, the time has now come for it to do so. He challenged the new bishop to avoid acts that would divide the church, emphasizing that he should understand and keep in mind that he can not handle the task ahead alone but rather, he needs the prayers and help of others to be sustained.

The visiting prelate admonished the church, to entrust others with the task to move the church forward and avoid taking decision because someone is the friend of the bishop; adding, when someone is able to do a job, give it to them.He warned against the misuse of the church’s funds; stressing that money raised for the church must be used for the growth of the church and the nation in general.

He further admonished the new bishop to be a Good Shepard and to always have what he called, a forgiving and reconciliatory spirit and at the same time be sympathetic as doing this would make things work out well for him. He also warned the church against homosexual behavior and same sex marriage; stressing that if this is accepted by the church, within the next ten years, things would go out of hand.

The cleric called for respect for the constitution especially by those in authority as a way of limiting conflict across the world; stressing that there is conflict all over the world, something, which he said is not good for humanity. He added that no one should adopt the habit of staying in power or leadership role for long or for eternity. He pointed out emphatically that there is a need for us to handle power in a way that when someone handles it for sometime, they should release it and pass it to another person…

You can find the whole article here.

Bible portraits: Lazarus (Part 3)

It was four days after the funeral that we noticed an unfamiliar figure walking towards us along the path. I watched as Martha caught a glimpse of him out of the corner of her eye. Without a moment’s delay she rose and ran out towards him.

They were just out of earshot, so I can’t tell you anything about the conversation that transpired between them. Yet I could see Martha gesticulating with her hands and I could tell that she was angry. Then I saw him put his hand gently on her shoulder and speak to her, and immediately she became calm. When the conversation had ended, she came back and spoke to Mary: “The rabbi is here…”

So, I thought to myself, this must be the one I have heard so much about, this Jesus fellow from Nazareth. I watched with increased interest as Mary got up to go to him, and a few of us followed her along the path towards the tomb. Poor Mary crumbled down onto her knees before him. Through her sobs she managed to blubber, “Lord, if you had been here, my brother would not have died.” It was evident from the drawn expression on his face that this Jesus was deeply moved by what was happening. He must have held Lazarus in great esteem, yet we couldn’t help wondering, if that was the case, why he had not come earlier.

He said to Mary, “Take me to the tomb.” As he stood in front of it, I could see the tears running down his cheeks, glistening in the afternoon sun. His whole body was trembling with emotion. I have never seen anything quite like it. If I had had any doubts about the reality of his grief, they vanished in those brief moments. Then he said, “Take away the stone.” “But Lord,” Mary protested, “what good will that do? His body will already have begun to decompose.” “Move it,” he repeated with a firmness and an authority in his voice that I have never heard in anyone before or since. The words were barely out of his mouth before several of us were heaving the rock away from the entry to the tomb. Jesus stood directly in front of it and lifted up his hands in prayer. Then he spoke into the tomb: “Lazarus, come forth!”

I could hear in his voice the same authority that had been there before. Somehow all of us knew almost beyond doubt that something (we had no idea what, but something) was going to happen. In dumb silence we all gazed into the dark entry of the tomb. Peering into the shadows we saw the impossible happen. Still tightly wrapped in his shroud the dead man came forth. All of us were paralyzed with a combination of terror and amazement. Through our numbness we could hear Jesus say to us, “Unbind him and let him free.”

Chills still run down my spine as I think back on that day. It may seem strange to you, but the image that remains with me most is not the figure of Lazarus emerging from his tomb. It is the tears on Jesus’ face and his sobs of grief. Somehow I knew that those tears were not like mine. Jesus was not weeping for himself. He was weeping for me and for each of us who stood outside Lazarus’ tomb that day. He wept for our sorrow, our helplessness, our desperation, our death.

Little more than a week elapsed before Jesus met with his own death. He was dragged before a mockery of a court and hanged from a cross, the death of a common criminal. Since then I have come to be one of those who believe that in his death Jesus did what I began to see him do at Lazarus’ tomb. There he took upon himself not merely our sorrows but all that keeps us from knowing the life that God intends for us—our sins and even our death. As Jesus wept for me in Bethany, so I believe died for me at Calvary. In the words of one of our prophets, “He was … a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief… Surely he has borne our griefs and carried our sorrows…”

Gracious God,
how can we thank you for sending Jesus into our world
and into our lives?
How can we thank you for his tears shed for our sorrows
and for his death for our sins?
Help us to know him truly as the resurrection and the life,
and that whoever believes in him will not die
but have life eternal.

Bible portraits: Lazarus (Part 2)

Days passed and Lazarus’ condition grew only worse. When we had begun to lose any hope of his recovery, someone—I think it was Mary—came up with the idea of trying to contact a traveling preacher who had become known for his ability to heal. His name was Jesus, and he came from (of all places!) Nazareth, up north in Galilee. “Who ever heard of a prophet coming from Galilee?” I had to ask myself. Yet in recent months we had begun to hear all kinds of stories about him enabling lame people to walk, the blind to see and the deaf to hear, even of his turning water into wine at a wedding reception and feeding five thousand people with just a handful of loaves and fish. Passover was not far away, so perhaps he would be coming through these parts anyway.

The two sisters sent off a message as quickly as they could. A day passed, and another, and another. With each of them Lazarus’ condition only worsened until finally the inevitable happened. Lazarus was dead. Martha and Mary were beside themselves. They had done everything they could to help their brother and more. And it had all proved to be of no avail. Somehow it all seemed so wrong that such a good man, who had done so much to enrich the life of our little village, should be taken away from us. Yet what do the Scriptures say?

As for mortals, their days are like grass;
they flourish like a flower of the field;
for the wind passes over it, and it is gone,
and its place knows it no more.

I knew all that in my head. Yet in my heart it seemed wrong. The week of mourning that would now begin, wearing harsh, coarse sackcloth next to the skin, our heads covered, and no shoes to protect our feet from the harshness of the rocky ground, would help to express our sorrow, our feelings of deprivation, and the wrongness that death is. However it would not console us; it would not subtract from our sense of injustice; and it certainly could not bring our beloved Lazarus back.

Like many of the men of Bethany, I shaved off my beard as a visible reminder of the loss that Lazarus was for all of us. For seven days none of us would wash or anoint our bodies or even eat. As Lazarus had been a man of considerable means, professional mourners were hired to chant the traditional dirges. However, their wails were not the only ones heard in Bethany that week. All of us joined in their lament with its shrill, rhythmic choruses of “Alas! Alas!”

If there is one thing we Jews know how to do, it is to mourn. The centuries of pain that are our history have ingrained that into us. I think of the weeping of our ancestors as they labored hard during their cruel years in Egypt—of men who endured the lash as they slaved under the hot sun, of women who lived in constant fear that their infant sons would be put to the sword before their very eyes.

We can still hear the echoes of the cries of those who watched on as our sacred city of Jerusalem and its Temple were torn down stone from stone and burned to the ground by the Babylonians, with thousands being dragged into captivity hundreds of miles away. To this very day we sing the words our poets wrote as they languished there: “By the rivers of Babylon—there we sat down and there we wept when we remembered Zion…”

Now we in Bethany found ourselves weeping once again, for dead Lazarus and for his two sisters, Mary and Martha. Or was it for ourselves, and for the deep loss we all felt in the knowledge that Lazarus would be a part of our lives no longer, but only a memory? Never again would we join with him in his laughter, or sit around his table, or hear his words of wisdom, or be the beneficiaries of his innumerable kindnesses. The thought passed through my mind more than once as I helped to carry Lazarus’ body, tightly wrapped in yards of linen and fragrant with pounds of exotic spices, to its resting place just outside the village, as I grunted to help move the heavy stone across the entry to his tomb, and during the days of deep mourning that followed.

Drafting an Anglican Covenant

In a recent article in the Church of Ireland Gazette, Archbishop of Dublin John Neill, a member of the Covenant Design Group, had this to say about the most recent draft:

• The overall structure is simpler, and based on three sets of affirmations with accompanying commitments, namely “Our Inheritance of Faith”, “The Life we share with others: Our Anglican Vocation” and “Our Unity and Common Life”.

• The blocks of biblical references are removed, but more use is made of direct and indirect scriptural quotation and of scriptural language in the Introduction and in the Covenant itself.

• There are two themes which find greater prominence, namely the emphasis on mission and the emphasis on reaching beyond those involved in this process, which is the wider ecumenical challenge.

• The fourfold Chicago/Lambeth Quadrilateral appears quite clearly in the first section, and the episcopal ministry is examined more fully in the third section as well.

• Because this Covenant is for the whole Communion, it had to be recognised that the position of some of the historic documents varies from one Church to another, as, for example, some Churches do not mention the Thirty-Nine Articles in either their formularies or in their Declarations of Assent. Reference is made to the formularies of the Church of England, therefore, when historic formularies are mentioned (1.1.2) rather than to a common list.

• The Instruments of Communion are not set in stone, but are listed in historical sequence and are set in the context of the many links which sustain our life together. The Primates’ Meeting is listed last (in historic sequence) and there is no hint of it having a superior role or position in relation to discerning the will of the Communion, a feature which many feared in the earlier draft.

• Autonomy is emphasized throughout the document in relation to individual Churches, but the limits to that autonomy are obvious if communion is to be a reality, and so that phrase “autonomous in communion” becomes very significant (3.1.2).

• Some responses had requested that the Anglican emphasis on reason should appear, though had not offered practical suggestions. However, in Section 1.2.2, which speaks of the handling of Scripture and Tradition, the concept of reason is admirably set forth.

• The controversial area will, of course, be Section 3.2.5 which deals with the handling of difficulties within the Anglican Communion. The Covenant really sets out no more than principles that Churches should accept to remain in communion. The appendix is not an official part of the Covenant, but simply a suggestion of how these principles might work out in practice. Some will see them as too legalistic, and there is the undoubted danger of building disciplinary procedures into a “marriage” contract. We must not reduce the Covenant into a pre-nuptial agreement. I would hope that the Covenant will eventually go out by itself for approval and the type of issues outlined in the Appendix be left to the Anglican Consultative Council to agree and amend as necessary from time to time.

You can find the entire article here. The Covenant itself may be found here.

Bible portraits: Lazarus (Part 1)

Bethany is not a large community by any standards. Sometimes I think the only way people know we exist is that we are the first stop on the winding road that leads from Jerusalem to Jericho. I suppose you could hardly say we are a stop, located as we are a mere two miles from Jerusalem, just the other side of the Mount of Olives. Although, when Jerusalem is especially crowded as it very well can be at times such as Passover, Bethany can be a handy spot to hang your hat.

Many people consider that the best feature of Bethany—its closeness to Jerusalem. I suppose it is convenient to know that just half an hour away you have all the amenities of a large city. Yet for me and for most of us who live here, what we like most about Bethany is its smallness. None of the anonymity or the dirt or the crime of the city here! Bethany is small enough that we can all know one another, and as a result there is a great deal of caring that goes on. In many ways we are more like a large household than a village. Besides that, nearly all our families have lived here for generations, so that most of us are related in one way or another.

Nothing can happen here without someone finding out about it pretty quickly. So it was, when one of our most prominent townsfolk, Lazarus, was confined to bed, everybody knew about it. For many of us it did not come as a surprise. We had noticed for a while that Lazarus was not looking himself. Normally he was robust and cheerful, full of energy, the life of the party. He always had time to listen and he would never withhold his help when someone was in trouble or in need. Yet recently he had become withdrawn. He seemed tired, and the color had gradually drained from his face. No one knew what the matter was. And you don’t like to ask in those situations for fear of appearing nosy or intrusive. So we watched as Lazarus gradually went downhill, not knowing what to think or say or do.

Of course his two sisters cared for him wonderfully. Martha has to be the finest cook in town. There is nothing that can equal her fatted fowl or broiled fish with vegetable and herb broth. One of the greatest pleasures was to be invited to Martha’s home for a meal. You knew you would leave more than satisfied. And when Martha cooked for a festival or a social occasion the whole village would be permeated with the delicious aromas that emanated from her kitchen.

Lazarus’ other sister Mary was a total contrast. She was hopeless around the house. Yet she was universally respected as a woman of prayer. Long before anyone else had arisen and long after most of us had retired for the night, you could see the glow of the little oil lamp in Mary’s room as she stood before the Lord in prayer. Mary’s prayer life was such that there were many who, if we had a particular need, would come to her and ask her to pray for us. And we knew that she would pray tirelessly, unceasingly, and bring our needs before the throne of the Lord. If anyone’s prayers in our village were heard, they had to be Mary’s.

So Lazarus could not have been in better hands with his two sisters, the one making sure that he was properly fed and cared for, the other praying for him night and day. Nevertheless, when we heard that he had become too weak to rise from his bed, we began to realize that what was wrong with Lazarus was something that even the best care in the world could not alleviate.

Crossword Solution

Oh yes, and here is my proposed solution to last week’s puzzle:

London Times Cryptic Crossword for March 2

Here is this Sunday’s cryptic crossword puzzle from the London Times. Just click on it for the full-sized, printable version: