For the Sake of Truth

for the Feast of Richard Hooker: a sermon by Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

GRANT that we may maintain that middle way, not as a compromise for the sake of peace, but as a comprehension for the sake of truth. — The Collect for the feast of Richard Hooker

There once was a vicar in an English country church of whom his congregation said, “Our Vicar is like God — he is invisible on weekdays and incomprehensible on Sundays.” I hope that I will not in my reflections today prove to be the latter.

Incomprehensible is a synonym for “impossible to understand.” Such understanding can be pictured almost in a physical sense: for to understand is to stand under, as a table stands under what is placed upon it, and so must be larger and more stable than what it holds in order to sustain or support it. To comprehend in this sense is to hold the object of knowledge on the table of ones mind.

Which is why God is incomprehensible. We cannot comprehend God because however hard we try, we cannot wrap our finite minds around the infinite God; God will not fit on the table of the human mind, however rasa our tabula, however much room we make on it, however many leaves we add, because, as the old hymn says, God is broader than its measure.

And the same goes for Truth, if we are speaking of Truth With A Capital T — not just some true things, but the whole ball of wax, the Truth as a full and complete description of All That Is — for the description must be at least as complex as what it describes. Try, for example, to describe a zipper to someone who has never seen one. And when we get to natural zippers like the string of DNA that holds us all together and builds us up at the most fundamental level, the description will take volumes — the printed listing of the human genome, a single transcribed copy of just one DNA zipper, of which we each carry trillions of the real thing in our bodies, would take 200 volumes the size of the Manhattan phone book.

To make matters worse, the truth about what is — even as it is spoken — adds to the sum of what is. If we were to write down even a mere tally of all that is, without further comment or explanation, truly the universe itself would not be large enough to contain all the books that might be written. For the books themselves would add to the substance of the world, and with every word we wrote we would be adding to the subject of our enterprise, and the bibliographers and catalogers would soon have to take up their work. As the wise man said, “Of the making of books there is no end.”

Indeed, the only way to comprehend the Truth, in this fullest sense of the word, and as appears to be the aim laid out in the Collect for this feast of Richard Hooker, is to be outside of all that is. And since only God is outside of all that is, as God is the cause of all being and becoming, so only the mind of God can truly comprehend all Truth.

We get glimpses of this outside-in structure of reality in the visions of the saints and poets — in Byzantine icons and in Dante, and in William Blake too. Perhaps it is most vividly captured in that wonderful vision God imparted to Blessed Julian of Norwich: a God’s-eye-view of the universe, as she saw in the palm of her hand a tiny thing no bigger than a hazelnut, so frail it looked as if it would cease to be in a moment. And God told her, It is all that is, and it endures because God loves it. As Blake would later write,

To see a world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower,
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.

That is the God?s-eye-view that only the odd mystic glimpses.

Now, in spite of the visions of the saints and poets — who are careful not to mistake these momentary experiences of God’s view of the world for their own accomplishment — most of us are wise enough to know our limits. As Hooker himself put it, “The true properties and operations of [God] are to know that which is not possible for created natures to comprehend; to be simply the highest cause of all things.” (5.53.1)

Yet in spite of this, some in the church from time to time do appear to think they have come into possession of the Truth, which usually turns out to be something far more prosaic and far less visionary — a set of right doctrines, or more commonly, right behaviors. And most of us have the good sense to realize that even this limited claim is a bit presumptuous. We have learned from the hard experience of the church’s history that what you don’t know can hurt you; and that often the church is at its most errant precisely when it claims to be most certain. It is rash for any in the church to claim the ability to see in a glass brightly: especially when the church’s rear-view mirror consistently warns us that objects are nearer than they appear — and we travel at our peril if we imagine that our view through the looking glass is either infallible or complete. Indeed, as we take that backward glance on the ecclesiastical autobahn, we see that behind us HeilsgeschichteStrasse — Sacred Story Street — is littered with the wrecks of time over which God towers in divine incomprehensibility.

Just ask Galileo, Richard Hooker’s contemporary, who set about the task of trying to record a few true things about the world, things evident to the senses, or at least to the senses aided and abetted by the telescope. He suffered the fate of being told that what was wasn’t, or at least wasn’t what he saw it was. Threatened with torture, he recanted and submitted to those who refused to know the truth of what is, so insistent were they on what they thought ought to be.

+++

Those on our side of the Tiber, the Anglicans, by Hooker’s day had learned their lesson the hard way. There had been enough burnings and tortures and beheadings on the scepter’d isle over mutually exclusive doctrines to satisfy the lust for certainty at least for a season. So a “settlement” to continuing vexatious matters emerged from the serendipitous arrival of a monarch like Elizabeth and a scholar like Hooker.

Now, Elizabeth, as a monarch, was probably more interested in compromise for the sake of peace than in comprehension for the sake of truth. She did not wish, as she said, to make windows into men’s souls. She knew that if she refrained from peeping into her advisors’ heads, she could benefit from the wisdom they would share around the privy council table, rather than having to commit those selfsame heads to the block and pike. As long as private opinion on divisive matters was kept in the privy closet, as long as one didn’t ask or didn’t tell, a form of peace could be maintained. Thus what Napoleon would later call the nation of shopkeepers kept the peace by means of compromise, the peaceful coexistence that falls a good deal short of true communion and community, but at least keeps heads on shoulders.

But as our collect reminds us, Hooker aimed higher. His Middle Way was not primarily a matter of compromise, but of comprehension. And the genius of comprehension lies in the breadth of its embrace, and in its confession of and willingness to live with an inevitable degree of error and ignorance. Hooker confesses that since we cannot know all things, and sometimes err in the things we think we know, we must allow room for all things, to make the table not infinitely broad (which is beyond our capacity) but broad enough to hold both the unforeseen and unexpected guest, as well as the uninvited and errant guest who shows up at the wrong party. Who knows, until the master comes, who really belongs there after all?

Hooker directs us to avoid the need for final answers on all but the minimally sufficient, and sufficiently salvific claims of the Gospel, secure truths at the heart of what it means to be Christian: centered on the existence of God, and the incarnation, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ —the eternal Gospel without which there really wouldn’t be any point in continuing the discussion, but beyond which all else is more or less provisional. As he said concerning baptismal faith: “Belief consisteth not so much in knowledge as in acknowledgment of all things that heavenly wisdom revealeth; the affection of faith is above her reach, her love to Godward above the comprehension which she hath of God.”(5.63.1)

So the final answers and the definitive positions on everything and anything, so beloved both by Calvinists and Papists, would give way in Hooker’s view to a more rational willingness to withhold and reserve final judgment on all but a very few core doctrines, to realize that mutually exclusive opinions on other matters cannot both be true — and in the long run neither might be true, and the real truth might lie somewhere else altogether. To cast the net broadly, to make the table wider; to expand the breadth of charity to include all possibilities on matters for which clear and final evidence is yet to be shown: this is Hooker’s rational and charitable mission, a willingness to treat our knowledge as sufficient, rather than complete, and certain, in certain matters, only of its own uncertainty; and above all to trust that all such knowledge and love are securely centered in the depths of God, where the Spirit moves and searches, and where alone wisdom is to be found.

For when one is truly in the communion of the Church, truly united with the other members of the body — which can only truly be a body when all the members are lovingly comprehended in it in spite of differing opinions on secondary matters — Deus ibi est: God is there. Next to this transcendent unity-in-communion all other modified and restricted uses of that word, even the one called “Anglican,” must surely pale in comparison. In the truly comprehensive communion of the whole Body of the Church, the blessed company of all faithful people, we are in God, and God is in us.

+++

And it is in this that we come to the grand reversal, the inside-out of God. Now, generally speaking, reversible garments are notable principally for being unattractive whichever way you wear them. But the inside-outness of God is quite another matter. Here we enter the amazing world — the real world, I might add — in which the inside is bigger than the outside — as observation shows us is true of most church buildings. God’s universe, it turns out, is more like those Byzantine icons or M.C. Escher lithographs than most people are willing to allow. This truth is summed up nowhere so well as in that Johannine avalanche of prepositions and pronouns from today’s gospel.

Jesus starts first from the expected greatness of God: “As you, Father, are in me and I am in you, may they also be in us” — so we are nested in God, resting in the palm of God’s hand like Thumbelina, safe in our hazelnut cradle.

But then comes the surprising reversal: Jesus prays, “I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one,” and suddenly we — made one in the mystical and holy communion of the Body of the Church, the Body of Christ, the temple to which God comes and deigns to be our guest — suddenly we hold Christ within us as he holds the Father within him, nested like a set of Russian dolls with God the Father in the innermost secret room of the human heart, the holy of holies, the privy chamber and closet of good council, and the human image and likeness become the frame to hold the true divine reality behind all that is, among us and within us always.

+++

And in this and this alone is the comprehension of the Truth, the whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth. I said earlier that God will not fit upon our mental tables; but there is one table on which God will fit, indeed, upon which God will fit in a few minutes. It’s right there in the sanctuary. In a few moments, the universe will turn inside out, the heavens will open and God will descend and condescend to be among us and with us, the Spirit will descend upon us and upon these gifts, and we will hold God in the palms our hands, and place God to our lips and, like Mary, become God’s earthly sanctuary. We in him and he in us, will become what we behold, and hold what we become.

Sanctified in this Truth, comprehended in this Body, fed with this food, may we be now and ever one, in the knowledge and the love of God, and the peace of God which passes understanding.

---

A Man of Justice, Freedom and Peace

At the upcoming Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of New York, I am sponsoring a resolution to ask the Bishop to authorize the commemoration of John Jay on May 17, using a proper to be developed by the diocesan liturgical commission.

Those who only know of Jay from high school American history classes may well wonder why Jay could possibly figure on the calendar of the church. I was in much the same position until an attorney friend and colleague from a neighboring diocese brought Jay to my more devoted attention!

He also pointed out to me that the American Book of Common Prayer’s calendar commemorates no American layman — with the exception of Jonathan Daniels, who was a seminarian. This is not for a lack of people on whom to draw, and among them is John Jay (1745-1829), who as most of us know was a major figure in the early days of American politics, serving in the Continental Congress, on numerous diplomatic missions, and as the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

But Jay was not only pivotal in the creation of this nation, and the peaceful settlement of the Revolution, but in the early constitution of the Episcopal Church, locally and nationally. He supported Bishop Provoost of New York, and was a close friend of the first Presiding Bishop William White, who was chaplain to the Continental Congress that Jay headed as President. As a deputy to the first General Conventions he influenced the development of the church’s political structure in a way that won the approval of the Church of England, and paved the way for Canterbury’s consecration of the post-Seabury generation of bishops. (Seabury’s freewheeling approach had nearly scotched further recognition of the Episcopal Church on England’s part!)

Jay’s influence didn’t stop with the Constitution, however, as he was also blessed to live long enough to become one of the charter members of the Episcopal Church’s first corporate effort: the Domestic and Foreign Missionary Society, founded in 1821.

Jay was also a man of high moral principles — not without his complexities — and as the church is called to examine the history of slavery, it is important to note Jay’s early role in ending it, from as early as 1777. He was a founder (in 1785) of the New York State Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves, and the African Free School for their education. He was a major voice in the debates that eventually led to the phased abolition of slavery in New York State beginning in 1799, with the passage of an Act he was able to sign as Governor. Years later, in 1854, journalist Horace Greely noted that no one could take more credit for ending slavery in New York state than Chief Justice Jay.

It is certainly true that Jay had his faults and was no stranger to controversy. He tangled with Bishop Hobart over the relative merits of denominational versus free Bible societies — and to prove his point was a founding member of the American Bible Society. And unlike the more idealistic abolitionists of the next generation (including his son William), although Jay eventually freed all slaves in his possession, he defended the gradual approach on the pragmatic grounds that liberation without education and skills was of no service to the one set free.

Jay has additional local significance for New Yorkers. He was a graduate of Kings College (now Columbia University), a warden of Trinity Church in Manhattan, and a founding member and senior warden of St Matthew’s, Bedford. It is altogether fitting that the Diocese of New York commemorate the life of this servant of Christ, an exemplar of a layman’s ministry in his tireless work for justice, freedom and peace, as a step towards proposing his eventual inclusion in the calendar of the Book of Common Prayer.

— Tobias Haller BSG

---

Panel of Reference: Still In Communion

The Archbishop of Canterbury's Panel of Reference (charged with dealing with matters of alternative oversight for dissenting parishes) has issued a report on the state of things in the Diocese of New Westminster. This report will prove to be of cold comfort to the dissenters, as it dismisses one of their central claims, i.e., that in order to remain Anglican they need to separate from the Diocese of New Westminster. Of particular note are paragraphs 21 and 25:

21. The argument that in order to remain "in full communion with the Church of England throughout the world" it is necessary for dissenting clergy and parishes to separate themselves from the diocese of New Westminster, adopting a title for their organisation which implies that they represent the Anglican Communion in New Westminster, in addition to or instead of the diocese and Bishop Ingham, can not be sustained. The Church of England itself remains in full communion with the Diocese of New Westminster and Bishop Ingham, pending resolution of the presenting issue, and therefore with all of its clergy, members and parishes, including those who dissent from its diocesan synod decision but remain in full fellowship with the Bishop and the diocese, together with the dissenting parishes unless they formally withdraw themselves from the Anglican Church in Canada. Even if this were not the case there is no evidence that communion with dissenting parishes would in fact be broken since such provinces which have declared impaired communion have made it clear that they remain in communion with those whom they regard as faithful.

25. The AS critique of SEM elaborates further on the claim, which we believe to be unsustainable in the current situation, that in order for the dissenting clergy and parishes to be in full communion with the Archbishop of Canterbury and the "Church of England throughout the world" it is necessary for special arrangements to be made for them outside not only the Diocese of New Westminster, but outside the Anglican Church in Canada. It is factually incorrect to state (AS 3.4.2.2) that "the province has been suspended from the Anglican Communion until 2008". In fact the Anglican Church of Canada was asked voluntarily to withdraw its representatives from the Anglican Consultative Council until the Lambeth Conference in 2008.

The report ends by once again tossing the ball back into the Provincial Court, where by all traditional and legal understandings it belongs.

How this will relate to the Episcopal Church remains to be seen. However, as similar claims concerning the Episcopal Church have been made by the Anglican Communion Network, and more recently and vociferously by such tangential bodies as AMiA and LEAC, one can only surmise that the Panel of Reference will similarly reject the similar claims, as they too are without foundation.

— Tobias Haller BSG

Kigali Count Out or Handwriting on the Wall

So the Kigali conference of the Global South has managed to muster at most 20 primates (probably less) apparently willing to tell the Episcopal Church where to get off. Now, as I've noted before, the number actually needed to expel the Episcopal Church (or the Church of Canada) from the Anglican Communion is 26: a two-thirds majority of the 38 primates being required to amend the membership schedule of the Anglican Consultative Council. Even of those less than twenty a few might develop cold feet when it actually comes to a vote.

So, not having the votes, they are resorting to bluster and threats. They will absent themselves from the next Primates' Meeting unless by some feat of ecclesiastical legerdemain a rump-or-shadow Primate for disaffected Americans is sent along with the real Primate of the Episcopal Church (by then) ++Katharine Jefferts Schori. Given his past reluctance to do such irregular things, I cannot imagine +++Rowan will provide for this. So the way is paved for a grand salon de refusées consisting mostly of those who would refuse to sit in the same room with the real Primate of TEC. The door is set to open for a grand departure.

Meanwhile, shifting alliance and allegiance in the AMiA and ACN, as well as questions of "who really speaks for the Global South in the US" have begun to trickle onto the blogosphere, and members of the Windsor Report drafting team check in with their assessment of how well (or not) TEC did in "compliance" with the suggestions, recommendations, and urgings of the Windsor Report. (I'm sorry, but "Windsor Compliance" always makes me think of Mrs. Wallace Simpson and the abdication of a British monarch...)

So we continue to live in interesting times. What will the Global South's failure to muster sufficient support for its agenda lead to? What will the splintering of the American dissenter movement produce, or fail to produce? Has enough rope been provided?

&mdash Tobias Haller

If wishes was horses...

There is an old saying, "If wishes was horses beggars would ride." I take it that needs no further elaboration.

Lately, however, I'm beginning to think more along lines of, "If wishes was Communion Anglicans would have one." I say this because I'm feeling a disengagement from reality taking hold on the whole discussion. I would dignify much of this imaginary chatter with the term "paper tiger" were it not for the fact that so much of it isn't even on paper these days, but circulating in the ether of the blogosphere. Speculation is rife, as the cliché so neatly puts it. Just establishing "facts on the ground" is difficult as rumors are reported by the "journalists" du jour. Canons are ignored while various folks attribute "authority" to the latest opinions of a majority at a non-legislative conference (that's Lambeth to those who don't get the allusion, or illusion). Judgments of heresy and apostasy are tossed about like confetti at a street festival, by people poorly equipped and clearly unqualified to make such judgments. A "Global South" conference convenes and issues a statement apparently approved by those attending, and then at least two of those attending say "No way." Then it becomes questionable as to who even attended, let alone assented, as charges go back and forth, and Southern Africa is given something to Chew on. And who from Jerusalem actually attended — as press accounts differ? What, after all, has Jerusalem to do with Kigali, let alone Athens?

The point is, friends, I begin to wonder what is real any more. We seem more and more to be making it up as we go along. I've said before that we already have a real Anglican Communion Covenant in the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council — but no one ever seems to acknowledge this even exists as a way forward out of our issues. Instead, fictive authorities are confected out of strong desires; various groups coalesce and then evaporate, leaving behind the vapor of speculation in the air while trumpeting big steps forward — as if wishing could make it so.

I am reminded of Monty Python's block of flats built by hypnosis: as long as all of the residents continue to believe in the existence of their building, it will stand; once they begin to doubt, down it comes. I would have thought the Anglican Communion, as affectionate and fellowshippy as it is, was still built of sterner stuff than sheer wishfulness. But certainly the "New Communion" promised by the Global South is as much a product of the hypnotic repetition of half-truths as any of the Big Lies with which the last century was marred.

&mdash Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

The Truth About Cats and Dogs

The Mad Priest reflects upon the origin of the Cat as the means to render human folk humble. Noted, and seconded.


As my Thought for the Day, I offer the following:

Dogs are like people as people wish people were.
Cats are like people as they really are.

—Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG
The cat pictured is the late Oxford Deodatus

Yes, Minister Redux

A few folks have expressed dismay at ++Cantuar's appointment of ++West Indies (he who absented himself from Communion with Cantuar at Dromantine, and who has been trumpeting from the Global South for a while now) to the committee set up to work on the Anglican Communion Covenant. However, it is a well established principle of power politics that one can sometimes most effectively deal with problematical persons by appointing them to committees charged with addressing the problems to which they contribute by their irascibility.

It works in the parish all the time, and even though ++Rowan comes from an academic background, I think such things are well known in the realm of academia. And certainly in the Yes, Minister world to which I have alluded before! Remember how Sir Humphrey always made a point of getting Hacker deeply involved (and feeling so awfully flattered to be so) in the very matters in which he was in danger of upsetting the apple cart?

The old saying about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer might come into play were it not for the reluctance I have for portraying any Christian as an enemy (even if they don't accord me the same courtesy!).

— Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Fresh Air from Southern Africa

Archbishop of Southern Africa Njongonkulu Ndungane has issued an elegant rebuff to the Global South Communiqué in which he first of all establishes that he in no way approved of this document, even though it was presented in such a way as to suggest his approval — an approval widely reported in the press.

He goes on to say,

...There is no doubt that the tensions within the Anglican Communion, arising from actions within North America, raise serious and problematic concerns for our future. Yet I am deeply disturbed by the tenor of our approach, as reflected in this communiqué. To me, at least, it appears in places that there is a hidden agenda, to which some of us are not privy. For example, I am unable to understand why there seems to be a deliberate intention to undermine the due processes of the Anglican Communion and the integrity of the Instruments of Unity, while at the same time we commit ourselves to upholding Anglican identity, of which these, as they have continued to evolve over the years in response to changing needs, are an intrinsic part. Thus, for example, recent meetings of the Primates, in which the Global South played a very full part, requested various actions from the Archbishop of Canterbury, which he has been assiduous in pursuing; such as setting up the Lambeth Commission, the Panel of Reference, and now the Covenant Design Group. Yet there seems to be an urgency to obtain particular outcomes in advance, pre-empting the proper outworking of the bodies for which we called.

Patience is a fruit of the Holy Spirit. As Peter writes in his second letter, 'Do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.' We do not want the best of Anglicanism to be cast aside, and so to perish! And to allow the due processes of these bodies, and the Instruments of Unity, to be followed through will take such a short time in relation to the life of God's Church over two millennia.

I must also say that I am disturbed by the apparent zeal for action to be taken against those deemed not in compliance with Lambeth Resolution 1:10, with a readiness to disregard ancient norms of observing diocesan autonomy. Though this was upheld within the Windsor Report's recommendations, it is of course a practice that was adopted in earliest times by the universal church. It was thus ironic that that the feast of Theodore of Tarsus fell during our meeting: as Archbishop of Canterbury, in 673 he summoned one of the most important Synods of our early tradition. In addressing both the rights and duties of clergy and religious, its decisions included the requirement, already acknowledged elsewhere, of bishops to work within their own dioceses and not to intrude on the ministry of others. We are in danger of giving the impression of being loyal Anglicans, and loyal members of God's One, Holy and Apostolic Church, only where, and insofar, it suits us!

We must also be careful to avoid creating, in effect, episcopi vagantes. This is a difficult and complex area, which Resolution 35 of the Lambeth Conference of 1920 addressed when it said, 'The territorial Episcopate has been the normal development in the Catholic Church, but we recognise that differences of race and language sometimes require that provision should be made in a Province for freedom of development of races side by side; the solution in each case must be left with the Province, but we are clear that the ideal of the one Church should never be obscured.' In our time too, we must do all that we can not to obscure that ideal of the one Church.

I am also more than a little wary of calling into question the election processes of another Province in the way the Communiqué suggests, in relation to the Presiding Bishop of The Episcopal Church. This introduces a completely new dimension into our relationships within the Communion, the reciprocal implications of which we have not considered. I would feel more confident if we addressed this question as a part of the more comprehensive reassessment of the nature of the Communion for our times, which is underway not least through the work of the Covenant Design Group.

An added concern for me is the apparent marginalisation of laity, clergy and bishops in the debate within the Global South. I was particularly glad that circumstances allowed me fully to consult both my fellow bishops, and our Provincial Synod, immediately in advance of the Kigali meeting. For a fundamental and indispensable element of our Anglican identity is that we are both episcopally led and synodically governed. I long for a consultative process that fully engages the whole Body of Christ, recognising that 'to each one, the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good' (1 Cor 12:7). Primates do not have sole monopoly on wisdom and knowledge at this crucial time, nor indeed at any other!

There is much, much more, and I could go on quoting. But please read the whole statement. It is a breath of fresh air, a bold proclamation of the Spirit.

Hear, hear!

—T S Haller BSG

Consenting Adults

What’s really wrong with B033

Resolution B033 of the 75th General Convention surely has its faults. I have before addressed the fact that it can at most be taken as a strongly worded recommendation, since to do otherwise would be unconstitutional, and violate the principle of collegiality upheld in the Windsor Report, “What touches all must be approved by all.” Consent by bishops and standing committees is within their right, and no legislation short of a Canon to that effect can coerce them to act otherwise than they are free to do.

However, there are two moral problems and one canonical fault with B033, even as it stands, on which it falls short. First of all, it clearly had to be written in such a way as to avoid the suggestion that there was anything wrong with the election and consecration of Bishop Robinson. This church has made its position abundantly clear that though we may regret the consequences of that action, the action itself was proper. And so this resolution takes up a consequentialist ethic — a position of moral weaknesses. For to refrain from an act one believes to be good out of fear of negative consequences — especially consequences as relatively mild as presenting “a challenge” to the wider church — brings us into the ethically muddy world of utilitarianism — the principle of Caiaphas that weighs morality in pounds of flesh.

The second moral flaw is similar to the first: it is an extrinsic ethic — it is not about the goodness or evil of the act of consent, but what others might think about it. This surely falls well below the standards of Christian morality.

However, the more serious problem with B033 lies elsewhere, in its canonical form.

Our canons expect dioceses to elect persons of godly character, sufficient learning, and sound faith as bishops. Participants in the electing diocese’s convention sign a testimonial to that effect, which in addition assures the church at large that the election took place in due and lawful form.

However, the standing committees of consenting dioceses are expected to have neither direct knowledge of the election procedures, nor of the bishop-elect’s manner of life and learning. Rather, all that the canons expect them, as laid out in the testimonial they sign, is an attestation that they “know of no impediment” to the ordination. This is, essentially, an agnostic statement; it does not designate approval as such, merely lack of knowledge of an impediment.

Now, impediment is a quite precise canonical word; and it means something which renders an act impossible — so impossible that if one were to proceed with the act it would be null and void. This is why marriages contracted in spite of impediments (such as insufficient age, existant spouses, or defective intent) can be and are annulled — no marriage took place because the conditions necessary for it were not present.

A very few people have claimed that a noncelibate gay or lesbian bishop can’t really be a bishop because they cannot be “received by the whole church.” These few believe that the sexual practice of a person is an impediment in the strict sense. This is, however, Donatism in almost crystalline form — not a heresy exactly, but an error that leads to schism. For if a failure in the moral character of a minister rendered the ministry null, who could amongst us sinners, after all, be a minister? Donatism was rejected by the church because it was destructive of an orderly exercise of ministry among and by people all of whom are sinners. No, a moral failing is not an impediment.

Nor were consenting dioceses asked to make such a moral judgment — until B033. And that is where the problem lies: it places this discernment of the character of the ordinand not in the hands of the electors (as the canons expect) but in the hands of the consenters, forcing them to discern qualities that might challenge the wider church, rather than remaining focused on their own personal lack of knowledge of any impediments to the ordination.

Which brings me to the recent election in South Carolina.

Intentional neglect?

An impediment, say, in marriage, could be any of a number of things: lack of canonical age, existence of another spouse, and so on, as I noted above. I also mentioned another impediment, “defective intent.” If a person preparing for marriage were to say to the priest doing the pre-marriage counseling, “I of course remain free to terminate this marriage if my spouse gives me cause; and intend to do so,” or “I reserve the right to have relationships with others if I am really strongly attracted to them,” the priest would quite rightly say, “Then you do not have the proper intent for marriage.”

A priest who is about to become bishop takes an Oath, in the same manner as at priestly ordination but in a different context, stating, “I do solemnly engage to conform to the doctrine, disciple, and worship of The Episcopal Church.”

South Carolina, in preparation for its election, developed a survey instrument on an assortment of topics for the candidates to submit as part of their review. Here is how bishop-elect Lawrence answered some of the questions.

19. The church should not divide over this [homosexual conduct] issue. Strongly disagree.
20. If the Diocese of South Carolina does not become separate in some formal way from ECUSA, I intend to resign my orders as an Episcopal priest. Unsure.
21. If the Diocese of South Carolina separates in some formal way from ECUSA, I intend to transfer from this diocese to an ECUSA diocese. Strongly disagree.

Bishop-elect Lawrence’s responses are troubling. He appears to say (I will stand corrected if the double negative of question 19 confused him) that the church should divide over the issue of the rightness or wrongness of homosexual conduct. This in itself would appear to be countenancing schism, the technical name for division in the church. The bishop-elect is “unsure” as to whether he would remain in orders if his diocese does not separate from the Episcopal Church — and such insecurity is incompatible with an Oath. Finally, he intends not to remain with the Episcopal Church if South Carolina separates from it. That is, at least, how his answers appear. He surely deserves an opportunity to correct any misapprehensions, or wrong conclusions one might draw from a survey such as the one to which he responded.

Whether these survey responses by bishop-elect Lawrence constitute an impediment — and if he stands by them — thus remains to be seen — and needs to be seen — and will have to be judged by those preparing to give — or withhold — consent. Surely his statements are troubling on the surface. But I served on a committee with him at this last General Convention, and he seemed to me to be a man of high principle and conscience. I would pray that he would carefully examine his conscience and his principles in this present instant, and if there is any defect in his intent, mend it, or otherwise not place himself in the perilous position of taking an Oath he may not be prepared to maintain.

— Tobias S Haller BSG

---

The Widow and Her Church - A Parable

There was a certain rich widow who was a member of a congregation for the whole of her life. She dearly loved her parish, and over the years she had endowed it with many gifts, most especially a window of fine stained glass, much admired by the people round about.

But there came a time when a new pastor came to the parish, who knew not the ways of those who had gone before, and who changed many things that had been customary in the service. And the widow was greatly displeased. And so she went to some of her friends of the congregation and beseeched them to confront the pastor, and demand that he no longer do such things as he had done, but rather restore the customs which had long been in place among them. But the pastor refused to do so, for he noted that the greater part of the congregation approved of the changes.

And so the widow and her friends demanded that the pastor recognize their claim, and cede to them their portion of the building, that they might worship separately in accordance with the customs they had known, with a pastor of their own choosing. And the widow further demanded that if this could not be done that she should take from the church the pew in which she had been accustomed to sit, together with the stained-glass window, several ranks of pipes from the organ, two or three of the cushions, and one of the chalices, and she and her friends would go their way in peace.

What, I say to you, shall be done for this widow and her friends?

—Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Conversation and Appeal

Someone in the crowd said to him, "Teacher, tell my brother to divide the family inheritance with me." — Luke 12:13

On the eve of the meeting in New York between various sides in the present internal dispute in which our church is mired, the dissidents have issued an Appeal to Canterbury.

It appears to me that the Seven Bishops who issued this Appeal have not been listening very carefully to the Archbishop, who has said time and again that he will do nothing — and feels he cannot do anything — outside the existing legal structures of the church; hence this call for a meeting among those who can actually try to make some make-do effort under the solicitous Sir Humphrey-like watchful eye of a representative from England.

Speaking of which, this all does seem to resemble a lost episode of Yes, Minister in its own perverse way; particularly the tortures suffered by the English language in the efforts to twist ++KJS's language into the vilest heresy (worthy of schism or at least replacement with a Commissary), and to nuance the already highly nuanced prose of ++Rowan into a stark declaration of support for novel independence.

I still pray for a good outcome; and do not think the Dissatisfied Seven have done themselves any service with this Appeal to an authority who has already said, "Who set me to be a judge or arbitrator over you?"

—Tobias Haller BSG

The Church and the Churches

A colleague made a comment earlier today that got me thinking — as his comments often do. He referred to his longing for the visible union and reconciliation of the church. Needless to say, such longing for church unity forms part and parcel of many of our efforts and our hopes; and certainly the very least we hope for is an end to conflict, and vigorous cooperation in the works of mercy.

But what got me thinking were the unspoken questions behind the assumed goodness of an institutionally united church: What if the evolution of the church in its different branches is not contrary to God?s will and design, but a living out of an organic coming-to-be that is beyond our present understanding? What if the imperial model for the church — a single entity with a single hierarchy — is an accidental inclusion from the days of its birth rather than an essential element to be preserved into its maturity? And so this sends me back to the Scriptures to look more closely at the imagery of diversity and organic development that form so rich a part of the Pauline vision of the church. And what I find there is an image of a body in which not all the parts are the same, but in which different parts serve different functions. Even when split by factions, the splitting and the factions have their purpose: to aid in discernment, and to come to the truth.

I by no means suggest that Paul was a Hegelian: but as one schooled in the rhetoric of his time, he knew that the purpose of debate and division was to lead to a better understanding — to come to one mind through the analysis that takes things apart and sets them in opposition. Lately Archbishop Rowan Williams has been quoted as saying that only the united church can truly discern the truth: but isn?t it also the case (as the Articles affirm!) that a united body can be very much mistaken, and that to discern the truth (as yet to be revealed) some division and debate must inform us?

So I return once again to my favorite image for the united church: not united in a single institutional hierarchy, but in each of its divided elements united

by a common turning
to One Lord,
through One Faith,
in One Baptism,
for One Mission

— with each of the various evolved traditions bringing its gift to the party, its skills and insights to the well-being of the whole. What treasures old and new might we then all enjoy together: the mystical insight and deep tradition of the Eastern Orthodox, the fine thinking of Augustine and Thomas — but of Teilhard too, the fervor and biblical regard of the Reformers, the wit and wisdom of the Anglicans: all in one banquet of spiritual delights with room and to spare at the table for the new arrivals who will find this new church a place of peace and not of conflict.

— Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG

Common Cause and Effect

Folks from the conservative wing have been issuing confessional statements for a while now; and it comes as no surprise to me that when these confessions are examined in detail, they sometimes veer from real catholic orthodoxy onto the soft-shoulder of sectariansim while protesting that they are still very much on the road.

The recent Common Cause draft statement is a case in point. Others have noted the odd fondness for the 1662 Book of Common Prayer and its predecessors. But I was more struck by this clause of the Common Cause confession:

We confess the canonical books of the Old and New Testaments to be the inspired Word of God, containing all things necessary for salvation, and to be the final authority and unchangeable standard for Christian faith and life.

The latter half of this is very far and away out of the Anglican mainstream, and represents almost lapidary Calvinism.

Hooker addressed this argument, that the Scripture is a limit upon human life rather than the source of its life, in many passages of his work. Perhaps the most eloquent is this simple statement:

It is no more disgrace for Scripture to have left a number of things free to be ordered at the discretion of the Church, than for nature to have left it unto the wit of man to devise his own attire. (III.iv.1)

or at greater length, and with greater relevance to the present situation:

Two opinions therefore there are concerning sufficiency of Holy Scripture, each extremely opposite unto the other, and both repugnant unto truth. The schools of Rome teach Scripture to be so unsufficient, as if, except traditions were added, it did not contain all revealed and supernatural truth, which absolutely is necessary for the children of men in this life to know that they may in the next be saved. Others justly condemning this opinion grow likewise unto a dangerous extremity, as if Scripture did not only contain all things in that kind necessary, but all things simply, and in such sort that to do any thing according to any other law were not only unnecessary but even opposite unto salvation, unlawful and sinful. Whatsoever is spoken of God or things appertaining to God otherwise than as the truth is, though it seem an honour, it is an injury. And as incredible praises given unto men do often abate and impair the credit of their deserved commendation, so we must likewise take great heed, lest in attributing unto Scripture more than it can have, the incredibility of that do cause even those things which indeed it hath most abundantly to be less reverently esteemed. (II.viii)

I do wonder if the Common Causers really mean what they say in its literal and plain sense? Shall they begin to shun buttons and chromium, even as they embrace shunning those whose manner of life offends them? Shall we soon see a squad of Black Bumper Bishops, or even more observant Buggy Bishops? I think not. Rather, we will see the usual uneven application of Scripture that is convenient for some to the detriment of others: the font of all sectarianism cloaked as the catholic faith.

— Tobias S Haller BSG

Living Stones

Some years ago I preached at Grace and Saint Peter's, Baltimore, on the feast of their Dedication. I just discovered that the sermon was published in the Summer 2005 issue of The Anglican Catholic (XVII). It begins:

It is a great pleasure to be invited once again to stand in the splendid pulpit of this beautiful church; especially on this day when we give thanks for its dedication as a place set apart for the worship of Almighty God. In giving thanks, we are called to think not only of the spiritual gifts that abound in this place, but about the hard facts of its physicality: the reality of its very stones. And in doing so, we face a mystery revealed both in the creation of the universe, and in the new creation which began with the Incarnation of Jesus Christ.

This mystery finds its eloquent metaphor in one of the most contradictory images in all of Scripture: the living stones which Saint Peter invites us to become.

Now, in folklore and fiction, from the petrified souls who glimpsed Medusa's writhing hairdo, to poor Han Solo carbonized in Star Wars, being turned into stone is a curse, a symbol of death, coldness and finality.

So it may seem odd that Saint Peter should suggest that we be turned into stones. And so he stresses that the stones we are to become are living stones. That's another image altogether, equally familiar from legends and tales. My favorite instance is C.S. Lewis' The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. As you may recall, the land of Narnia has been cursed by a wicked witch, so that it is always winter but never Christmas, and she has turned all who oppose her into stone — frozen statues, who only come back to life when the Great Lion Aslan comes to revive them with his breath.

Enjoy the rest...

—Tobias S Haller BSG

Finally, A Conference

I am happy to see word of the planned meeting of our Primate and Primate-Elect and official representation from the Anglican Communion with a small group of American bishops, including both via media Lee and Alternative Oversight petitioner Iker. The Anglican Communion Office confirms that this meeting is taking place with the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury, unlike the Texas gathering to which I referred earlier, and for which the Archbishop's approval — while claimed — has not been explicitly confirmed.

It seems to me that, like it or not, any kind of Alternative Primatial Oversight will have to involve change or adaptation in the legal structures of the Episcopal Church — whether that means the creation of a new non-geographical Province X, a “flying bishops” scheme, or some other mechanism. I know similar ideas have been tabled and rejected in the past; but that does not mean that they cannot be reconsidered — as we saw at General Convention, reconsideration might be considered an Anglican conceptual art-form. Such reconsideration is to be preferred to the improvisational free-form ecclesiology that Anglicans have been engaging in of late.

Any official changes will require the official participation of the acknowledged authorities: and whether the dissidents like it or not, the Presiding Bishop is the Presiding Bishop, the General Convention is the General Convention, and it is high time for the Archbishop to work to engage the dissidents with the authorities whose consent will be required for any legitimate (i.e., licit) adaptations to accommodate the dissent.

I am distressed that some of my sisters and brothers of the liberal wing have begun bewailing this meeting before it begins, predicting anything from a sellout to a rout. On the contrary, I am hopeful that this meeting may produce some positive and concrete results toward a real settlement, because the people capable of actually accomplishing this are to be participants. This is not backchannel diplomacy, but perhaps a real treaty discussion at last.

Major changes will take time, however — the creation of a new Province will require another General Convention, if that is the road that is to be followed. But temporary measures can and should be put into place in such a way as to preserve the interests of God’s people on whatever side of the current controversy they find themselves.

Continental Congress

To return to a theme I’ve played a number of times over the last months, it is high time for all who profess themselves Christians to recognize the wisdom of Donne’s imagery about islands and promontories. He was talking about death — but I prefer to apply the image to life. No church is an island — even the so-called “national” churches are merely promontories and peninsulas. When we look across the gulf that separates, it is good to be reminded it is a gulf, not an ocean, and that at the headland of the continent we are united at our roots.

What, after all, is a “national church” in this day, in which Erastianism is a fading memory for Christianity even while it becomes the desideratum for militant Islam? Geography is less significant for us than it was in the days when few traveled, and few spoke any language other than their own. Even the Eastern Orthodox will acknowledge (ruefully) the anomaly of multiple overlapping jurisdictions in much of the world.

But the Christian, through baptism, is born into a citizenship that is not of this world — born again into a citizenship that cannot be lost, marked with an indelible passport stamped on the forehead in the shape of a cross. We are citizens of the world to come, and aliens in this one, wherever we are.

—Tobias S Haller BSG

---

Peter, Paul, and the Church

Those of us who follow the discipline of the Daily Office will soon be coming to the point in Acts of the Apostles at which it gets agreed that Peter should minister the Gospel to some while Paul and his associates will minister the same Gospel to others — others who will be held to a different standard of conduct, since they are not Jews but Gentiles. The wisdom of this move was credited by the Apostles to the Holy Spirit.

It appears to me that we have here a model for how to handle disputes in the church. It is not necessary, classical Anglican formularies tell us, that rites and ceremonies be in all places the same; nor would it seem, given the Apostles’ debate and decision, in even weightier matters of the Law, that an absolute uniformity be observed, so long as the heart of the Gospel is preserved.

To use Alisdair MacIntyre’s telling imagery, What deep truths from the narrative of our past, in which the practice of obedience has formed us, will enable us to meet future commitments in such a way that we “make of human life a unity”? What, exactly, are the obligations put upon us by the Gospel, if not those Christ enumerated in the Summary of the Law? And how, in keeping them, do we find ourselves, even if discontinuous on the practice of other virtues — even virtues held by some to be grave and important — how do we find ourselves still able to remain united in spite of these discontinuities?

And can we? This is the challenge that faced the church of Acts: and as the Epistles show, it failed — splintered over glossolalia and circumcision and a handful of other trivial discords that the churches’ warring members allowed to divide them — until the hammer of martyrdom in the Empire’s hand awoke them to a consciousness that there were more serious things in life — and in the life to come.

So can we be a church united in Christ while still some of us are “Pauline” and others “Petrine”? Does the unity of the church depend on choosing between Paul, or Cephas, or Apollos? Upon this set of rules or another? Or upon Christ, who summarized the Law under the rubric of Love, and in whom we are one not by our own virtue, but by virtue of our Baptism, and who has chosen us as much as we have chosen him?

— Tobias S Haller BSG

---

Transfiguration

“Some standing here shall not taste death until
they see the Son of God in glory come.”
So Jesus prophesied. He soon chose some
of his disciples, climbed a lonely hill.
Did they suspect that that would be the day
when glory would come down within a cloud,
surround, embrace them all, and speak aloud,
“This is my Son. Hear what he has to say.”?
They saw; they heard, but did not understand
what goal the high Eternal Counsel planned.
Ahead lay cross and crown, the lifting up,
the agony, the bloody, bitter cup.
But Peter did not comprehend these truths.
Instead, he said, “Lord, let us build three booths.”

Tobias Stanislas Haller BSG, July 1990

---

Canterburial Insertions Unhelpful

I am distressed that the Archbishop of Canterbury appears to be participating in the Texan Consultation by proxy. This continues a pattern of meetings with various parties disaffected to one degree or other, and his somewhat patronizing acknowledgment that the Anglican Communion Network consists of Episcopalians (which they took as a bit more of an endorsement than I imagine he intended; but then, his intent is difficult to read at times.) It must be acknowledged that +Rowan's acts have been less meddlesome than those of his retired immediate predecessor, but it is nonetheless bothersome in that he seems to be ignoring the standards of polity I referred to in my previous post.

Rather, the Archbishop should, by Lambeth's own standards, deal directly with the duly and synodically elected leaders of the (at present) sole legitimate constituent member of the Anglican Communion (per the Constitution of the Anglican Consultative Council) on our shores, The Episcopal Church -- not with conventicles or special interest groups, however exalted their membership, or however much the special interests of these groups might coincide with his own views, or the purported views of the "majority of the Anglican Communion."

It might be argued that the "embassy" of Bishop Langrish to meet with the House of Bishops was +Rowan's attempt at proper channeling; and that the "failure" of this mission (i.e., B033's alleged inadequacy) opens the door for this subsequent move. However, such a move remains — and I don't know how to say this delicately — subversive. It leads me to ask, "Archbishop, what part of the word 'No' don't you understand?" The Episcopal Church has made its position clear; no less ambiguously though with greater charity than, say, Nigeria.

In the best possible light, this may be an instance of behind the scenes diplomacy; the problem being that it is not behind the scenes but trumpeted on the Internet. Perhaps the good offices of Bishop Wimberly may provide some room for mediation. But I remain concerned that such ad hoc backchannel efforts have not, in the past, proven beneficial in the long run, and may simply distract us from the difficult task ahead.

— Tobias S Haller

Lambeth Speaks on General Convention

The proposed gathering of "Windsor" bishops in Texas appears, in its rejection of General Convention's official act in adopting B033, and as an effort to bypass the General Convention as the collective and authoritative "voice" of the Episcopal Church in Communion matters, once again to be ignoring a principle laid out by Lambeth from the very beginning:

"The Provincial Synod -- or, as it is called in New Zealand, the General Synod, and in the United States the General Convention -- is formed, whenever it does not exist already by law and usage, through the voluntary association of Dioceses for united legislation and common action. The Provincial Synod not only provides a method for securing unity amongst the Dioceses which are thus associated, but also forms the link between these Dioceses and other Churches of the Anglican Communion.... It is the office of the Provincial Synod, generally, to exercise, within the limits of the Province, powers in regard to Provincial questions similar to those which the Diocesan Synod exercises, within the Diocese, in regard to Diocesan questions. As to the relation between these two Synods, your Committee are of opinion, that the Diocese is bound to accept positive enactments of a Provincial Synod in which it is duly represented, and that no Diocesan regulations have force, if contrary to the decisions of a higher Synod; but that, in order to prevent any collision or misunderstanding, the spheres of action of the several Synods should be defined on the following principle, viz., That the Provincial Synod should deal with questions of common interest to the whole Province, and with those which affect the communion of the Dioceses with one another and with the rest of the Church; whilst the Diocesan Synod should be left free to dispose of matters of local interest, and to manage the affairs of the Diocese." -- Committee Report A of the Lambeth Conference of 1867

The findings of this committee were ratified in Resolution 4, which reads:

"That, in the opinion of this Conference, Unity in Faith and Discipline will be best maintained among our several branches of the Anglican Communion by due and canonical subordination of the Synods of the several branches to the higher authority of a Synod or Synods above them."

This does not, by the way, contrary to the assertions of some, refer to Lambeth itself, which was never conceived of as a canonical or synodical body, but as the invitation letter to the first Conference explicitly declared,

"Such a meeting would not be competent to make declarations or lay down definitions on points of doctrine." -- Letter of Invitation from the Archbishop of Canterbury, 22 February 1867

— Tobias S Haller

The Split [Still] In Our Future [?]

I wrote the following in October of 2004, in a note to the now famous House of Bishops/Deputies List. I am posting it here at this point as a “check” on how things have fared in relation to my sense at the time, just prior to the publication of the Windsor Report. I do so in part in response to the continued expressed hopes — and I have myself expressed them, most recently in an essay in Episcopal Life — that the Communion might still find a way to hold together in spite of the many tensions and disagreements we face.

The final question still stands.

The Split in our Future

Given the recent statement ("Drawing the Line") from the Anglican Communion Institute and the comments and actions of Archbishop Akinola, it appears to me that a split in the Anglican Communion is almost certainly assured. Neither Akinola nor ACI will be content with any form of Communion in which the Episcopal Church (and one assumes the Canadian as well) are allowed to be at the table in any meaningful sense of the word. A "parallel jurisdiction" in which parishes and perhaps dioceses of the "Network" would be recognized in addition to the Episcopal Church (assuming such an arrangement could be worked out) will not be satisfactory to ACI. Akinola and others have openly opined on a new "center of unity" apart from Canterbury, should he not comply with their demands for the discipline and exile of the Episcopal and Canadian Churches. Akinola has been explicit in his rejection of participation in any synod or conference in which those who consented to Bishop Robinson's election and consecration are seated, and to date has been true to his word.

I will make no prognostication on the contents of the Windsor Report, nor Canterbury's response to it, but it appears that we will either see a temporary split in the Anglican Communion (if the American and Canadian churches are exiled from full participation in the "instruments of unity" until they have undone what others believe they ought not to have done) or a permanent schism (consisting of perhaps most, but not all, of what is called the "Global South" and a number of sympathetic parishes, and perhaps dioceses, scattered through the rest of the present Communion) if those concerned do not find the solution Canterbury eventually adopts to be acceptable.

Am I misreading the signs of the times?

— Tobias S Haller BSG (October 2004)

---

Growth in a Godward Direction

From a sermon on Ephesians 4

The Letter to the Ephesians tells us what it means to grow up — to be no longer a child blown about by every wind of doctrine, but being firm in the truth that God has provided us in the person of Christ. The wonderful thing about growing in unity in Christ is that it isn’t about uniformity: the various members of the church are completely united but individually gifted: as they grow they diversify!

This is what lies behind Paul’s baptismal language — beginning with unity, passing through universality, and ending with diversity: there is one body and one Spirit, one call, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father — of all — who is above all and through all and in all. But to each — to each — he gave grace according to the measure of Christ’s gift: and each individual’s gift is different yet works together for the unity of the body.

There is a biological reality to this movement from one to all to each: every human being starts as one single cell, a fertilized egg. As it divides into additional cells they specialize under the direction of that amazing DNA molecule that is identical in all the cells but directs each in its own way — this one becomes a nerve, another a blood cell, another skin, another bone. If all of the cells were the same, we would not and could not be what we are: we would be like the Blob — a giant amoeba that can only digest. But instead the body grows with differentiation — different cells equally part of the one body, all directed by the same DNA, but each doing different things for the good of the whole body, knit together in every ligament and joint, each part working together as one. Maturity requires differentiation as much as it requires unity.

So part of maturity means being an individual — as a psychologist would say, being individuated — not being tossed about by what other people say or think or feel, but having one's own identity. To be mature is to have one’s own sense of self, and the ability to exercise one’s own gifts but not to keep them for oneself alone, but to use them to the benefit of the good of the larger body, and its growth towards the end that God intends. Rabbi Hillel, who was the teacher of Saint Paul’s teacher Gamaliel, once said something along these lines: “If I am not for myself, who will be? But if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?” Each individual will have the maturity to stand for him or herself — but not to stand for him or herself alone, but in unity with all — and this happens in the now that is given to us anew each day. Perhaps Paul learned this lesson from his spiritual grandfather Rabbi Hillel.

For what is important in all of this is the direction of the growth: it is not growth away from God or from others, but growth into Christ, and for the good of the whole church.

There is obviously a lesson for us in all of this as we deal with our differences in the Anglican Communion — for differences there are. The church grows through diversity, united in Christ, preaching one Lord, but with each of its many members in the body making their unique contribution to its well-being. To use the biological language once again, ontogeny recapitulates ecclesiology: the process of differentiation and growth from one through all to each is what makes us who we are as individuals and as the church.

So let us learn to celebrate our differences as part of God's gift, rather than seeing them only as wounds in the body; perhaps they are not wounds at all, but the marks of difference that empower mission in ways we might not be able to serve if we were all alike.

Tobias S Haller BSG

---

What if...

For Christ is our peace; in his flesh he has made both groups into one and has broken down the dividing wall, that is, the hostility between us. He has abolished the law with its commandments and ordinances, that he might create in himself one new humanity in place of the two, thus making peace, and might reconcile both groups to God in one body through the cross, thus putting to death that hostility through it. — Ephesians 2:14-16

What if we were to practice what we proclaim: that we are one in Christ by virtue of our baptism?

What if we realized that what divides us are the rules we set in place to define us?

What if we set aside the commandments that divided us, the ordinances that determine who is in and who is out, the law that makes outlaws of us all?

What if we accepted Christ as our peace, as he accepted us, and went without covenants and treaties to bind us together, but trusted only in the Cross?

What if we truly practiced what we proclaimed?

— Tobias S Haller BSG

---

It’s Not Easy Being Pope

“Mortal, I have set you as a watchman to the house of Israel.” Note that Ezekiel, the one the Lord sent to preach the word, is called “a watchman.” A watchman or sentinel takes a post on the highest point, in order to see whoever may be coming from a distance. Similarly, anyone appointed watchman to a congregation should live a “higher” life so as to keep all things in sight.

As I say these words, I realize I am reproaching myself. For I do not preach as I ought, nor does my personal example accord with these principles that I’m preaching even now. I can’t deny my guilt, for I’ve become lethargic and negligent in my work; though perhaps by recognizing my failure I’ll win some sympathy and pardon from the judge. Before I started this work, while living in a religious community, I was able to refrain from talking about idle topics and to devote my mind devotedly to prayer. Since taking up this new pastoral position, I have been unable to concentrate on prayer, because I’m so distracted by my responsibilities.

For example, I have to consider questions about churches and communities and make assessments about people’s lives and acts. One minute I’m involved with a public policy issue, and the next minute I have to worry over outside threats to the well-being of the church under my care. I have to accept a public role in political matters in order to support good government. I have to bear patiently with law-breakers, and then confront them with an attitude of charity.

I am split and torn to pieces by the variety of weighty things on my mind. When I try to concentrate and pull myself together to preach, I feel inadequate to that sacred task. I am often compelled by the nature of my position to associate with worldly people, and sometimes I become casual in my speech; because if I spoke my conscience dictates with all formality, I know some of them would simply drop me and that I could never influence them towards the goal I desire for them. So I endure their aimless chatter in patience. Then, because I am weak myself I am drawn gradually into idle chitchat — and I find myself saying the kind of thing that before I didn’t even want to listen to! I’ve come to relish wallowing where once I would have been ashamed to stray by accident.

What kind of a watchman am I? Far from the heights to which I aspire, I am constrained by my weakness. And yet — the one who created me and redeemed me and all humanity can give me, even in my unworthiness, some grace to glimpse the whole of life, and the skill and ability to speak of what I see. So it is for the love of God that I do not spare myself in preaching.

— Gregory the Great, from a sermon on the Book of Ezekiel

---

Does Communion Require Authority?

I have followed the writings of the ACI and its members for some time. It appears in general they seem to wish there were a "judicatory" of some sort at a level above the individual churches of the Communion. I recall language of "superior synods" from some years ago, for example, from either Dr Radner or Dr Seitz. This has remained a theme in the ACI work.

What must be admitted -- or at least should be admitted, and +Rowan for one admits it though he may rue it, or not (on alternate days of the week) -- is that at present no such synod or judicatory exists. There is no central authority in the Anglican Communion to which all of the provinces must submit. There are, on the contrary, provincial authorities to which dissatisfied members refuse to submit, appealing to the notional superior synod that is as of yet to be called into being.

What is now under discussion is whether such a judicatory should be established. Some (particularly those malcontented with their own or others' inferior synods' decisions) say yes, others no. It is no good trying to argue that there is a natural progression towards such centralization. There is nothing "natural" about it. It takes a good deal of work, if indeed it is work we want to undertake. Nor is such a political structure inherently more "Christian" -- it may actually be less so to the extent that it relies on "authority" after the manner of the kings of the Gentiles, rather than the richly organic body that Paul seems to favor, in which all are identically blessed, but each is uniquely gifted. (Ephesians 4)

At present some who have made the loudest noises about what they regard as infractions in our common (unadjudicated) life, have also made it abundantly clear that they consider themselves omnicompetent to make such judgments regardless of any other adjudication. I speak of Nigeria, as the prime exemplar of this. This province has indicated it is interested in fellowship of any kind only with those with whom, in its sole determination, it agrees.

There is also a great deal of speculation concerning the possible Anglican Covenant, and much of it assumes that the Covenant will be written in a certain way, so as to create a level of superior authority capable of saying who is no longer a valid member. But I can think of a Covenant that is based not on authority but on trust, not on power but on commitment; in short, more in keeping with the Gospel, that might say things like, "No member or members shall judge the actions of any other member or members."

Wouldn't that be novel.

Tobias S Haller BSG

Bondage and Discipline

The most recent comment from Canterbury seems to express a fervent (or wistful) hope rather than to offer a real possibility. +Rowan appears to want a stronger Communion in which everyone signs off on something to which they all agree to be bound. But clearly the problem is that no such document yet exists -- and is unlikely to come into existence if the people composing it are the ones who can't agree in the first place! Or at best, this is merely a way to ratify the divisions.

For Rowan is unwilling to step in as the strong-man and simply lay down the law of what he thinks the Covenant should be -- even in draft form. He seems to hope that a solution will emerge from the primeval soup of discord, but I sense that his "solution" will prove merely to be a label on the problem -- a handy name for the disease rather than a cure. If this is Samuel waiting for David to get back from the sheepfold, I'm afraid he will have a long wait.

We have been cycling in rings of paradoxes since the Windsor Report: a collegial-minded leader at the head of a fractious collegium, one which alternately insists on the rights of the individual members ("What touches all must be affirmed by all") but then wants to impose limits on who is in and who is out if they assert those rights; that calls for dialogue but invites withdrawal from the consultation; and so on. I've noted all of this before.

As for any Covenant that might emerge from the present cast of characters: If it is strong enough to bind, few will be willing to be bound -- as it is the very ones calling for such bondage and discipline who also most vehemently insist on being the definers of the limits: the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), for example, has made their position abundantly clear.

So this is little more than an ecclesiastical tautology: those who will agree will agree, and those who don't won't. If everyone just gives in to the lowest common dominator, well, then we might have peace, but at what price? What does it profit any of us to gain a Whole-World-Church at the cost of our ability to minister effectively where we actually are?

What I believe could survive -- if we would get off the Utopian kick for a new model -- is precisely the same old messy mix that Anglicanism has always been: or at least since Colenso and the very first Lambeth Conference, admittedly more since 1988 and 2003: a collection of historically related churches, with bilateral rather than universal mutual communion, impaired here and there because of gender or sexuality, but willing to cooperate on mission.

Can even that survive? You will note that it is also the Global South that has introduced problems with the latter: in the Ugandan rejection of any support even for the corporal works of mercy if they come from the tainted hands of North American Episcopalians. I ask again: who is causing the tear in our church's fabric?

So, it is time for an honest, rather than a wishful, appraisal of the situation. It is either, to my mind, a "weak" communion that is strong on mission, or a hobbled and divided -- and I dare say split -- communion in which the institution is secure and the mission flounders.

WWJD?

Tobias S Haller BSG

Whence and whither

I've argued for a long time that the Anglican Communion is neither a federation (which would require some sort of written Articles) nor a world-church (which would require a single hierarchy) but much more in the tradition of the Eastern churches: a communion. (Fr J Robert Wright's essay in the pre-GC Anglican Theological Review reflected this observation as well.)

As I see it, the pressure now is between those who say they want a Communion but are actually pushing for either a Federation or a World-Church. The idea of a fellowship of "national" churches bound by a common tradition and mutual respect and geared for mission seems to have fallen by the wayside under the pressure for more centralized authority or a fractious club concerned mostly with its membership rather than its mission.

The idea of mutual submission, and embracing the Cross of self-denial is wonderful. But it only works if everyone agrees: the emphasis must be on the mutuality as much as the submission. Otherwise we simply become, or create, a structure of domination: precisely what Jesus warned against when he told the apostles that they were not to exercise authority after the manner of the kings of the gentiles. I'm reminded of the quote attributed to Mahatma Gandhi, who when asked what he thought of Christianity, is said to have responded, "A wonderful idea; why doesn't someone try it." With the present state of affairs, those who laid down their ecclesiastical arms, so to speak, would simply become the victims of the lowest common dominator.

Could we not still function as a loose network united by historical ties, common (or at least related) liturgies, and engagement in mission?

A good idea; why doesn't someone try it.

—Tobias S Haller BSG

Dear Rowan, No Thanks

Word has now come from the Nigerian Synod that should be abundantly clear to the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is, if I'm not mistaken, the third strike.

In this communiqué the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) gives reality to its new name, and new significance to the parentheses. The Church of Nigeria is to be the ultimate arbiter of the Anglican Communion. The Lambeth Conference is described as risking having outlived its usefulness, and an alternative all-Anglican all-Bishops conference, in the "age-long tradition" (well, at least from 1867) of decennial gatherings will take its place, under the careful organizational oversight of this new regime — if things don't go the way the Nigerian pontificators think they should.

Archbishop Rowan, what part of this do you not understand? Who, exactly, is tearing the fabric of the Communion at this point? Who are the "super-apostles" who puff themselves up, trumpeting their delight in recognition by Time and declaring other parts of the body to be "cancerous lumps" worthy of excision? These pronouncements from Nigeria are more than unhelpful. It is time to recognize the nature of pride, and real "unilateral" action against other members of the church when it is proposed or taken. This is not the spirit of interdependence, but something else entirely.

&mdash Tobias S Haller BSG

Excerpts from the statement:

1. CONGRATULATIONS

Synod notes with satisfaction the efforts of the Primate of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion), His Grace, The Most Rev. Peter J. Akinola, in giving the Church of Nigeria, (CAPA and Global South) a purposeful and effective leadership. It further expresses its approval of his actions and pronouncements against errors of revisionist ideologies. With much delight and enthusiasm, Synod received his citing by TIME Magazine as one of the 100 persons that shaped the World in 2005, and encouraged him not to relent in his efforts in exercising his ministry.

2. THE ANGLICAN COVENANT

Synod is satisfied with the move by the Global South to continue with its veritable project of defending the faith committed to us against present onslaught from ECUSA, Canada, England and their allies. The need therefore, to redefine and/or re-determine those who are truly Anglicans becomes urgent, imperative and compelling. Synod therefore empowers the leadership of the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion) to give assent to the Anglican Covenant.

3. THE LAMBETH CONFERENCE

The Lambeth Conference which is one of the accepted organs of unity in the Anglican Communion is due for another meeting in 2008. The Synod, after reviewing some recent major events in the Communion, especially the effects of the ?revisionists? theology?, which is now making wave in America, Canada and England, observed with dismay the inability of the Church in the afore­mentioned areas to see reason for repentance from the harm and stress they have caused this communion since 1988 culminating in the consecration of Gene Robinson, a practicing homosexual in 2003 as a bishop in ECUSA. Synod also regrets the inability of the See of Canterbury to prevent further impairment of the unity of the Church. It therefore, believes strongly that the moral justification for the proposed Lambeth Conference of 2008 is questionable in view of the fact that by promoting teachings and practices that are alien and inimical to the historic formularies of the Church, the Bishops of ECUSA, Canada and parts of Britain have abandoned the Biblical faith of our fathers.

4. GLOBAL SOUTH CONFERENCE

Synod underlines the need for maintaining the age-long tradition of a ten-yearly Conference of Bishops in the Anglican Communion for discussing issues affecting the Church. It therefore calls on the leadership of the Global South and Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa (CAPA) to do everything necessary to put in place a Conference of all Anglican Bishops to hold in 2008 should all efforts to get the apostles of ?revisionist agenda? to repent and retrace their steps fail.

---

Unity and Truth

Unity without truth may be mere conspiracy.
"Truth" without unity leads only to divisions and factions.
But unity in pilgrimage towards the truth we only know in part:
this is the path the church is called to walk,
following the One who leads us into Truth.

—Tobias S Haller BSG

A Theatrickal Masque

I'm wondering if instead of a Lambeth Conference it might not be worth staging a pageant or theatrical production. One play to which I've alluded below comes to mind: King Lear. I think +Rowan would be admirably typecast -- he certainly has the "look" -- though he might prefer to spell the title character's name by the older mythological "Llyr"! He was the king, you will remember, who decided to divide his kingdom among his children, giving the best bits to the ones who flattered him the most.

Cordelia will, of course, be the first role for our new Presiding Bishop: the daughter who truly loves but will not dissemble just to please, and must suffer the consequences of disenfranchisement. In this she stands in for the whole Episcopal Church, it seems, or 90 percent of it, anyway.

The Fool who tells the truth but to whom no one listens as the tragedy unfolds? Bishop Robinson, I think you've got a part to play: Shakespeare's fools are the wisest but also the saddest, and Lear's fool most of all. Of course, you may not be invited to the show. If so, I nominate Desmond Tutu for a special farewell performance of a part he's played not just in the church, but in the world.

The other daughters will have to be played in drag, in the tradition of Shakespeare's time. A number of US bishops seem to be vying for the roles of the sisters who butter up and then betray their father, so auditions will be held. (The star has casting approval.) So too for their husbands. Perhaps an Australian accent might be good there; with a touch of Southern Cone.

Then there's Edmund and Edgar (Akinola and Ndungane?) and a host of other characters.

It could be a very interesting production. Perhaps even instructive.

Feeling somewhat of a Fool myself (and I actually did play the role once years back in a very odd musical version of the play) I remain,

Perplexed at the haste with which people seem to be moving in widening gyres,
Tobias+

Canterbury's Latest Thoughts

Not bad; not bad at all. Finally a response that begins to make a good bit of sense, and lays out some clear paths for the future. Thank you, +++Rowan.

I, for one, could live with the "second track" solution; maybe even prefer it! After all, what does it really mean in practice to be "second class" in this new Communion: not going to Lambeth, maybe not being part of ACC (which takes a vote of 2/3ds of the primates -- including us and Canada and SA and Mexico etc.) So let's say that's what happens; as my CPE supervisor would say, "And.....?"

In one sense, Lambeth and the ACC and $2 gets you on the subway. We're talking about two weeks of meetings every 3 or 10 years! In the interim is all the good stuff of MISSION, which is what the church is FOR! What a novel idea. As Lear put it, we can be God's spies, and stop worrying about who's in and who's out, and all the intrigue and gilded butterflies of the ecclesiastical "court." And maybe spend more time on the real work of the church.

And that's my point, as I made it at the Convention when I spoke in favor of the process leading to a Covenant: the problem with the contemporary church is we're thinking about ministers instead of ministry: all this focus on personal qualities and manner of life instead of whether they do what Jesus said to do.

Jesus seems to have been completely indifferent to the "manner of life" of those he called to serve, and those who served him -- as long as they served! (Remember the woman who washed his feet with her tears, and Simon's pious reaction?) You know, Jesus never mentions personal holiness at all; it's part of the purity code he rejected. He talked about prophetic righteousness and not judging others. Hmmm... could sure use more of that in the Anglican Communion!

The only downside to Rowan's reflection is his still being mired with this particular sticky matter: "The Church's One Obsession" with its own structure, its being rather than its doing; the tendency to exalt form over function. But I'm hopeful the two-track solution might actually be liberating for us all!

So let's embrace an imperfect communion based on mission instead of a pure one based on the lifestyles of the missionaries!

What should have happened

a Swiftian catena

The General Convention should have listened to the clear directions of the Primates and repented and repudiated all that had been done to offend.

The Episcopal Church should have ignored the tradition of national church polity and remained as a missionary arm of the Church of England even after the Revolution.

The Church of England should have listened to the pope and never separated from Rome.

The Eastern Orthodox should have done the same and submitted to Rome so as not to sever communion.

The martyrs should have followed Saint Paul’s advice to obey those in civil authority.

Saint Paul, in the interest of not tearing the fabric of the early church, should have acceded to the circumcision party instead of trusting to his own private interpretation of Scripture.

The Jerusalem Council should have ignored the anecdotal evidence of Paul and Barnabas — which could only serve to make Law-abiding Jewish converts uneasy.

Saul should have ignored his personal “experience” on the road to Damascus and followed his orders from the Sanhedrin.

The other apostles should have ignored Peter’s “dream” and stuck to the letter of the Law.

Jesus should have heeded Peter’s advice and turned back from Jerusalem.

He might also have considered more seriously the various options presented to him in the Wilderness Report.

Joseph should have ignored the “personal revelation” he received — again in a dream, no less — and acted in accordance with the Law, and when he found Mary to be with child by someone other than himself, had her stoned to death, and her unborn child with her.

Then we wouldn’t be having all these problems with the Anglican Communion.

—Tobias S Haller BSG

---

Our New Primate: God Bless Her!

An announcement at Saint James Fordham • June 25 2006

Last Sunday was Father’s Day, but it was also the day upon which the gathered bishops of the Episcopal Church — numbering almost 200 — elected the first woman Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church — the first woman primate of the Anglican Communion, ready to take her place alongside the leaders of the other thirty-seven independent provincial churches of the Communion.

We have indeed come a long way from the days in which Saint Paul said it was not proper for a woman to speak in church or to teach, but that she should learn in all submission. It is evident that although Saint Paul was doubtless guided by the Holy Spirit in much that he said, he was also limited — as he admitted — as a man of his own time by the culture of his own time. Even today there are human cultures that do not allow a role of leadership to women. But divine order overturns human limitations.

In his better moments, Saint Paul knew this: that woman’s submission was not part of God’s original will for human beings; that indeed when God created man and woman he created them as equals. Adam himself recognized this fact when he greeted Eve by saying, “This at last is one like me: bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” Eve was meant by God to stand at Adam’s side, from which she was taken — not cringe under his feet! It was only the fall that led to her submission and subjugation to the husband from whom she came, just as Adam was forced into subjugation to the earth from which he came: to toil at it with a sweaty brow until he would return whence he came.

But as Saint Paul also recognized, in his better moments: in the redeemed life in Christ, the effects of the fall are reversed: the world is leveled out, and there is no more domination or subjugation, but rather mutual love, as God’s curse is reversed by God’s grace. As Paul wrote to the Galatians, in Christ there is no more slave or free, no more male and female. These differences have lost their importance, and more importantly, their power to enslave.

It is true that Paul found it hard to give up the cultural beliefs in which he was immersed like a fish in water. He approved of slavery — even though we now consider that for one person to own another as a piece of property is not acceptable in God’s sight. So too Paul tolerated the subjugation of women, and would not allow them to teach or hold authority.

Fortunately, Paul knew that his vision was limited, clouded as it was by his own cultural limitations, and he admitted to his partial knowledge in struggling to see the truth through a glass darkly. But even more importantly, Paul’s limitations in this regard are more than offset by our Lord Jesus Christ himself, who made no such distinctions: who in fact allowed women to be the first apostles of his resurrection, the first to bear the word that he had risen from the grave — to be apostles to the apostles.

And so it is we welcome Katharine Jefferts Schori as the first woman Presiding Bishop, Chief Pastor and Primate of the Episcopal Church — and perhaps we should, as Anglicans, be reminded that the supreme governor on earth of the Church of England is also a woman: Queen Elizabeth the Second; and that our Anglican tradition came into its own under the loving and careful direction of Queen Elizabeth the First. So perhaps Bishop Katharine might well echo the famous words of Elizabeth the First as she prepared for battle against foreign invasion, when she said: “I know I have the body of a weak and feeble woman, but I have the heart and stomach of a king, and a king of England, too!”

God bless Bishop Katharine Jefferts Schori, and may she guide this church in the light of the Gospel.

• Tobias S Haller BSG

Note: my congregation consists largely of West Indian and West African members, many of whom come from parts of the Anglican Communion that do not ordain women even to the priesthood, let alone the episcopate, and many of whose cultures still regularly subject women to a secondary status. I can report that this somewhat extended announcement was very well received!

---

Parliamentary Procedures

An article in the on-line Living Church describes the various actions surrounding A161 and the more Windsor-complian substitute. In so doing it somewhat confuses the procedural challenge that I offered after the chair ruled the second resolve of the substitute was in order. My constitutional objection was to the language of the second resolbe: "Resolved that the 75th GC effect a moratorium on the authorizing of all public rites of blessing of same sex unions (WR 144)," which is not the language reported in the TLC article: "that this General Convention not proceed to develop or authorize Rites for the Blessing of same-sex unions at this time." That language would have been in order, as it referred to the General Convention choosing not to do something. But that is not the language the substitute proposed.

My point, eventually upheld by the chair, is that the GC cannot "effect a moratorium" on such matters by resolution, since this is a Constitutional issue: Article X and the BCP itself give bishops the right to authorize liturgies not provided for in the BCP. Had the language of the substitute used the word "recommend" rather than "effect" it would have been entirely in order.

—Tobias S Haller BSG

Resolution Redivivus

A thought came to mind in relation to the language I used in a response to a reporter about A161 -- since widely quoted -- that the resolution had died. Little did I know it would come back in another form on the following day! Whether this was a resurrection or a case of someone having neglected a stake through the heart, it is clear that this was a sentiment that would not rest easy in a legislative grave.

But this also brings back memories of an earlier time. It seems to me that in GC2006.B033 we are essentially dealing with a resolution (and situation) not unlike GC1979.A053, except this time only consent to bishops is addressed. Like that resolution, this one is recommendatory: not because the Convention is unable to adopt binding language, but because it can only do so by amending the canons and constitution, as was pointed out in the objection to the substitute that used the Windsor language of "effect a moratorium." (Had this substitute used the word "recommend" where it used "effect" it would have been entirely in order.) As in 1979, a number of bishops have already made clear what is well within their right: they are not bound by this resolution.

The reason for this, of course, is the other principle embodied in the Windsor Report, about which I've written before: what touches all must be decided by all. It is at present within the right of any diocesan bishop or standing committee to consent (or withhold consent) to an election of a bishop, for reasons which need not be specified. The General Convention can recommend concerning this right, but not restrict it, short of expressly adding an impediment to the canons. (This was attempted in resolution D067, which I don't believe ever made it to the floor.)

My sense is that in the coming weeks and months we will see this matter put to the test: given a candidate's many qualities apart from his or her "manner of life," and the high regard in which the decisions of electing dioceses are held, whether the church will be willing to withhold consent in order to please the dissident within our church and the arrogant* without it.

--Tobias S Haller BSG

---

* I use the word arrogant in the somewhat archaic sense, of those who assume powers they do not have. Such as telling other provinces what to do.

Fear, Folly, & Disorder

Fear cloaked as courage, victimization masked as sacrifice, and disorderly expediency: these are the qualities that typified the dysfunction of the closing day of the General Convention meeting in Columbus.

Fear of fear itself

Our leaders spoke of not giving into our fears. But what were the fears they hoped we might set to one side? The only fears of which I was aware on the last day of the General Convention were fears we did not set to one side: fear that the Anglican Communion might split, or fear that we as a province might be excluded from the conversation. It seems very possible that in spite of the good intention, our action on the last day of Convention will not prevent the Communion from splitting, and though we may have provided Canterbury with the minimum to allow an invitation to the Anglican conversation pit, we no longer have anything to say.

How much better to have let our Yes be Yes or our No, No. How much better it would have been to tell those who accuse us of imperialism — within our church or in other provinces — that we have no wish or will to impose our views upon anyone, and are willing to take whatever steps are necessary to assure them of this willingness, including placing our future as part of the Communion in their hands. How much better to be excluded to the margins (or even off the page) for doing what we believe to be right: for Christ would be with us in our exclusion to the edge or over it, as he was always more comfortable in the company of those deemed sinners than in the synagogues of the ones who thought themselves righteous.

The sacrifice of the few for the many

I wasn’t a Girardian before this General Convention; but I have to admit I saw the Girardian principle of scapegoat-making in full play: as a few were selected to be the offering that would relieve the anxiety of the many. In the course of debate, a number of persons spoke of the sacrifice being made in the first-person plural; however, it was evident that very few of them were making any personal sacrifice at all. And while it is always permissible to sacrifice oneself, it is never so to sacrifice someone else.

As the day wore on I began to appreciate what it feels like to be the Sudetenland, as a little piece of paper marked B-033 offered the false promise of peace in our time. It is already evident this blemished sacrifice has been rejected by the augurs.

Disorderly Houses

On the last day of Convention, disorder plagued both Houses. The deputies had on the day before considered and rejected a resolution urging the church to refrain from ordaining any bishop, or blessing any relationships, that might provoke anxiety. The deputies also heard a substitute imposing moratoria à la Windsor — unconstitutional because the General Convention cannot abridge the rights and responsibilities of the various organs of the church except by amendment of the Constitution and Canons. I am happy to have pressed the point on the liturgical question, on the basis of Article X of the Constitution and the Book of Common Prayer, which gives bishops the right to authorize liturgies not provided for in the BCP; the President received my objection in good spirit and after further consultation ruled against consideration. The original resolution was rejected by a wide margin, and a motion to reconsider it similarly failed. So far the normal orderly procedures of the House.

It was on the following day that pressure began to be exerted, with the calling of a joint session in which the Presiding Bishop appealed to both Houses to pull the Episcopal fat from the Anglican fire. The Bishops departed to their chamber and adopted B-033, substantially the same as the first resolve that failed in the Deputies: calling on the various organs of the church to refrain from consenting to a bishop whose manner of life might add to the tension in the church. (We all know what that means, and to whom it refers, I assume.) In order for the Bishops to take up this matter, it was necessary for them to suspend their Rule XVIII, which forbids new legislation after the second day of Convention, and even more strongly on the final day of the session. I assume the Bishops took this necessary step prior to adopting their Resolution B-033.

In any case, this resolution was then sent to the Deputies, who had to suspend their Rule 28 governing the consideration of a matter once settled, and should likely have suspended Rule 31.b.7 on the reconsideration of a reconsideration without material change. (The Parliamentarian ruled that as the matter of B-033 did not include the resolve about rites that it was materially different.) After the vote on the second reconsideration passed, debate was engaged, into which was inserted an address by the Presiding Bishop-elect, concerning fear, swords and shields, and conjoined twins. I fear this action will cost her ministry more deeply than we can even begin to estimate at this point, and that B003 may not turn out to be so much a gift as a burden.

I remain concerned when such a scramble at accommodation combines with a helter-skelter setting aside of rules of order — rules not designed for their own sake, but to prevent this very sort of coercive (or, if you prefer) persuasive exercise of power: to protect the rights of the assembly and its many members. One of the things that could well be said of GC2003 — whether one agreed with its decisions or not — was that all canonical rules and regulations were followed scrupulously. The same, quite simply, cannot be said of GC2006: rules were not followed, but suspended.

After all is said and done, I do know one thing: Jesus is my friend. I thought the Episcopal Church was my friend, too — really. And B033 is not how you treat your friends.

In conclusion

Can good come of this? Yes, I do believe, in God’s good time and with God’s good grace. But expediency often shows itself to be inexpedient in the long run. Perhaps an icon for the Episcopal Church at this point might be the electronic voting system adopted for this General Convention. It was hoped that it would simplify and expedite our process. In fact it took up far more of our precious time together than was wise of us to expend, leaving us stumbling over ourselves in the closing hours of what I cannot call debate, but simply haste. When the means by which we do things (the institution of the church) becomes more important than, and draws resources from, the things we are called to do (the mission of the church) — well, we have made the error of Babel: as if the point was that we be united, that we not be scattered to bring the message to the world’s ends. The “unity” of Babel is the antithesis of the Gospel. Pray that God may restore the gift of distinctiveness that shatters the false unity of accommodation.

—Tobias S Haller BSG

---

About that bus...

As I feared, and referred to in responses to comments on the preceding post, my analogy has been misunderstood.

By "back of the bus" I did not, repeat not, mean to imply returning to a time of repression and injustice. I firmly oppose the suggested moratoria on ordination and same-sex blessings, and will not vote for their adoption. I support full and open inclusion of gays and lesbians in all orders of ministry, and favor the adoption of same-sex blessings. As a practical reality, reflecting the Anglican tradition of reception, and in order to promote broader acceptance over time, I believe such rites should be authorized on a diocese by diocese basis. This is what I meant by "local option" in the essay in Episcopal Life.

So what did I mean by the "back of the bus"?

I meant the situation in which we find ourselves at present: being out of favor with a large portion (about one-third as I reckon) of the Anglican Communion. The consequences of our not adopting the Windsor Report (whatever that means) may lead to our bishops not being invited to Lambeth, for example. So it is the "Anglican bus" as a whole I'm talking about, not the status of gays and lesbians, women, or disadvantaged people. Some have suggested that the whole Episcopal Church is to be placed in the back of the bus, so to speak, if we do not enact the moratoria. (Others have suggested we'll be thrown off the bus entirely, and some have even called for that explicitly, though I think it very unlikely given the super-majority of the Primates that would be needed to accomplish such a division in the Communion).

So it is in this respect that I am willing to "suffer wrong for doing right." I don't think that's "good" -- I wish following the gospel had no negative consequences -- I just think it is a sad fact of where the sorry-assed Anglican Communion is right now. I know it will change, and I will work for that change with every fiber of my being. But I believe the way to do that is the constant patient witness of enduring unmerited punishment.

Hope this clears up the misunderstanding.

— Tobias S Haller BSG

Comprehension

I've had a short essay published in the June issue of Episcopal Life, dealing with the current issues. It is called A comprehensive view...

An additional thought came to mind early this morning, in relation to the civil rights movement. Now, let me say right up front that I make this analogy not because of "rights" but because of "civil." There is no "right" to be ordained -- though there is a right for the church to ordain those whom the church discerns are called. But back to the "civil" part. What we are talking about is how we can live as a civitas: a civilized society in which differences are comprehended under the Sign of Love, not Judgment.

Anyway, I was thinking about the matter of the back of the bus. To put it bluntly, I am willing to stay on the back of the Anglican Bus. I am willing to accept the reality that my ministrations as a priest would not be acceptable in parts of the Anglican Communion, even in some parts of the Episcopal Church. But as long as I get where I need to go, the back of the bus works for me; for I trust that the day will come when those in the front will be willing to say, at last, "Come up higher." I am willing to "take the lowest seat."

The problem at present is that I get the feeling that some in the front of the bus don't want me on the bus at all. They'd rather I walk. What I ask of them is a willingness to let me stay on the bus. I am not asking them to leave; I am only asking them to let me stay. Because I believe the bus is going where we all want to go.

In short, my compromise is to say, Let us live with this imperfect agreement on these matters of rites and ceremonies, while relying on the perfect unity that comes in, with, and through the blessing of Christ. Let Christ be the focus of our unity and our goal -- not our own treaties and contracts.

Tobias S Haller BSG