Strategic Goals for Episcopalians

It appears the Strategic Planning Committee has identified five stategic goals for the future of the Episcopal Church.

Here is the list of the five areas listed as "very important" by the majority of respondents to a recent survey:

1. Reaching youth and young adults
2. Evangelism/proclaiming the good news of Christ
3. Worship, music and liturgy
4. Leadership
5. Strengthening congregations

What I find ironic is that the programs represented by 2 and 3 were cut from the budget of the Episcopal Church Center by General Convention last Summer.

Am I bitter because the elimination of 2 resulted in the termination of my position? Perhaps. But I was already fully aware that I needed to move on. That environment was not a good match for me. And, to be honest, I didn't do a good job of networking with the movers and shakers. So, to some degree, I understand why I might have been cut from the budget.

But what continues to astound me is that it wasn't just my position that got the axe; they eliminated the entire Evangelism program, resulting in about four evangelism resolutions to now be unfunded.

If I had been consulted, instead of being informed 30 minutes before the elimination of the program was announced to the House of Deputies, I would have suggested that Evangelism be folded back into Church Planting, as it had been in 2007. That would have lessened the public relations fiasco such a cut might cause, if nothing else. But, that's not what happened. So it goes.

This situation can be redeemed, however. Evangelism must now be championed at the diocesan and congregational level. Since most effective evangelism must take into account the cultural setting, this could be a good thing.

However, I am still concerned, especially in light of the revealing of these five areas of importance, that there is no one responsible for tracking the responses to the evangelism resolutions, no funds designated for their implementation, and no one to make a report to the next General Convention regarding the progress made in those areas.

If the areas of importance identified by the Strategic Planning Committee are indeed a reflection of what most Episcopalians desire to be our focus in the coming years, I would hope that in the future the Program, Budget and Finance Committee will consider those priorities before eliminating more programs at the Episcopal Church Center.

J.

Northern Michigan Prepares for the Next "Trial by Internet"

Last weekend, I traveled to Escanaba, Michigan expecting to encounter a disappointed and perhaps even bitter crowd at the Annual Convention of the Episcopal Diocese of Northern Michigan. I was pleasantly surprised to be greeted with warm smiles and numerous outbursts of laughter. After having the opportunity to speak with a few people individually, I'm convinced that their upbeat mood was not simply a show of false bravado, but an expression of the deep current of joy that seems to flow freely throughout that Diocese.

No doubt that there were moments in the last year in which that joy was stifled. In a recent Living Church article, Linda Piper, President of the Standing Committee of Northern Michigan, describes the deep shock experienced by the entire Diocese when their bishop-elect did not received the necessary consents:

...I don’t believe that any of us were prepared for the shock and disappointment, the anger and the sorrow, that came as a result of the failure of the consent process,” she said. “We weren’t ready for trial by internet. We never imagined that what we know to be true and right for us would cause such a reaction from the wider church...

Those that I witnessed gathered last weekend to do the work of the Diocese seemed to have gotten past their shock and anger. They shared stories of their encounters with God and joined their voices in songs of praise and thanksgiving. Their joy may have been stifled for a season, but it was not snuffed out.

Then they got down to the business of the diocese, which is outlined in their press releases, found here and here.

One significant piece of legislation was their approval of a resolution entitled "A Plan for an Episcopal Search Process." Here it is:

The Diocese of Northern Michigan, meeting in convention, October 30-31, 2009, adopts the following elements for the next Episcopal Search Process:

Build on the work of the Episcopal Ministry Team

Communicate effectively with the wider church

Form a Search Committee engaged in discernment

Be open to working with a search consultant

Use a broad process of collectiing potential candidates

Intend to present multiple candidates to the Special Convention

Use the "Petition Process" for adding names

There was some discussion about that last element, with a motion to strike it altogether. Some of the visitors were invited to address that particular point. The concern was that the Diocese might end up with a candidate who had little knowledge of Mutual Ministry, or even one who was antagonistic to the concept. The chances of that happening seem pretty slim to me, but that concern effectively highlights how important Mutual Ministry is to the people of this Diocese.

After a healthy discussion (much passion, but no heat), the amendment to strike the petition process was voted down. Then, after a few changes in the wording, the resolution was passed.

It's a good resolution, in that it should silence the critics of "the process" that were shouting so loud during the last election. To those critics...perhaps you might want to learn a little bit about Mutual Ministry before deciding to challenge what these folks are doing?

Regardless of who Northern Michigan's next candidate is, no doubt there will still be those who love a good witch hunt expending hours googling up every statement, sermon or liturgy that person ever made public. These hunters appear, at first glance, to have high standards.

Thomas Merton would be condemned by them. He might be a Buddhist, don't you know. William Temple wouldn't make the grade either, as he was known to say some rather shocking things when he was having a bad day.

Come to think of it, if all candidates had every sermon they ever preached, or every liturgy they ever designed, carefully scrutinized, I doubt if we'd have any candidates fit for Episcopal election, at least according to the standards of the self appointed watch dogs.

However, this same group of witch hunters/watch dogs actually commend their own leaders who bear false witness against their brothers and sisters, attempt to steal property from their Church, and strive to exclude great swaths of people from the kingdom of God, based on their personal biases. So much for their high standards.

One would hope that in the future our Bishops and Standing Committees will think twice before taking the accusations of such angry mobs seriously.

But, I digress. Back to Northern Michigan.

A big "thank you" to the people of Northern Michigan for allowing me to join your family for a few days. May your joy continue to flow. And may God grant you the courage to pursue what is right, and the grace to accomplish it.

And finally, if any of you reading this ever visit Escanaba, Michigan, you must check out the Swedish Pantry. The dining room walls are lined with clocks, all set to different times, causing a constant melody to ring out as they each strike the hour. The Swedish pancakes are heavenly. I had them with peaches, but the locals tell me they are best with lingonberries. Thanks, Rayford.

Oh, and Ernesto, next time you are seeking Upper Peninsula pasties, try to remember that the word has a short "a."

J.

Clericalism: An Institutional Challenge

I enjoyed my visit with the folks of the Diocese of Nevada. My new friend Rick has posted some generous thoughts about what I shared. Thanks, Rick.

When I arrived for their Annual Convention, I was somewhat surprised to see that I had overdressed for the occasion. There was only one other person in the room wearing a clerical collar. As I got to know them all a bit better, I came to realize that was not accidental. They didn't see themselves as "clergy" and "laity." They were simply the people of God, gathered for ministry. It was a very refreshing perspective.

I want to talk about that division between "clergy" and "laity" that we make in most places around the Church. Consider this a continuation of our discussion on bishops, which grew out of a previous post on authority.

I've been talking with a few folks about possible positions. I look at their "historic" buildings (which are often in need of immediate repair), take a look at their numbers, and am usually struck by that sinking feeling as the realization hits that they can't afford me. Most likely I'll accept a position somewhere soon, but it will probably be in a less than full time capacity.

And that's ok with me. Often it is not ok with the parish, though. To not have a full-time seminary trained priest is a loss of prestige. It means they have failed somehow.

We've got a problem. A serious problem. To explain the nature of the problem, I'll start with an example of the financial reality, even though I think the problem is rooted in something much more deeply troubling than money matters.

To have a full-time professional clergy person on staff costs a congregation about $75,000 to $80,000 annually, if you figure in health insurance and pension payments. That means, if you have 80 families ("pledging units") giving $2,000 a year, your clergy person is going to be half your budget, leaving you about $80,000 a year for maintenance of the physical plant and mission beyond your walls. In some places, that's enough to just get by, but you won't be putting anything away for the long-term maintenance projects that come with the territory when you're in an "historic" building.

Many Episcopal congregations have far fewer than 80 pledges. That's just the reality, especially if you are in a small rural setting. To keep on telling them that they need to grow is not the answer. That not only gives them an inferiority complex, it also makes "evangelism" be driven by trying to balance the budget.

The clergy who serve in these small congregations see the financial reality, and often carry a heavy weight of guilt around with them because they know that they are drawing half the budget. And here's where the bigger problem comes in.

Often, without realizing it, clergy in a small congregation will work long hard hours, feeling that since they consume so much of the pledge income, they need to earn it. They will not only offer the sacraments and visit the sick, but will also offer three classes, make a schedule to visit every member, attend every meeting, get involved in ecumenical events, do the newsletter, change the lightbulbs and mow the lawn.

There's nothing wrong with staying busy. But, much of what many clergy do on a day to day basis can just as easily be done by someone else. And by doing it all, the clergy person is actually taking away ministry opportunities from the rest of the members of the community.

Now, it may be the case that in some places the expectation is that the clergy should indeed do everything. Keep in mind that one of the three shifts we are witnessing is the move to a more "consumer society" orientation. When we begin to see the clergy as THE ministers, then the members become simply passive consumers of ministry. That is not a healthy model for a Christian community.

I've served in quite a few congregations, and, although the "consumer" mentality was not true for all of them, it was the norm. Often, it is during the interim period, when they don't have a permanent priest "in charge" that some congregations come alive. But, when the search ends, they sigh with relief, because now they can stop making those hospital calls, or chairing those meetings, or teaching that class.

Something is not right here.

The Diocese of Wyoming has this quote from Elton Trueblood on their Ministry Page:

If you are a Christian, you are a minister. This proposition is absolutely basic to any understanding of the Christian movement. A non-ministering Christian is a contradiction in terms. The Christian faith is not made up of spectators listening to professionals, and it is not for individuals who are seeking, primarily, to save their own souls. It is necessarily made up of persons who are called to serve as representatives of Christ in the world, and to serve means to minister. Ministry is intrinsic to the Christian life. Ministry is not something added or means to an end; it is central and ineradicable.

Is there a way that we can recognize the gifts of every baptized member of the Church, and allow the full expression of those gifts?

Yes, there is, but it requires some radical rethinking of our whole concept of ministry. Some, especially many of the professionally trained clergy, are going to buck against this rethinking, as it is going to require them to get out of the way.

I'm not suggesting that we simply eliminate seminary trained clergy. They have their place. But possibly that place is more along the lines of being a resource person for the ministry of all the baptized.

As a starting point to rethink our "consumer model" of ministry, I recommend that you consider some of the work already being done in the Dioceses of Alaska, Nevada, Northern Michigan, North Dakota, Montana, Colorado, South Dakota, Wyoming, Nebraska, Kansas, Western Kansas, Western New York, West Virginia, Vermont, Northern California, Minnesota, Oregon and several others. The concept that they are exploring is usually known as Total Ministry, but is sometimes referred to as Mutual Ministry. It's not perfect, but I think they are moving in the right direction. This idea was all the rage just a few years ago. We don't hear about it so much anymore. I think it is worth considering as one possible way for us to move into the future. Here is how it is described by the Diocese of Northern Michigan:

...we seek to honor the uniqueness of each baptized person and each local community in our diocesan community. We understand that the responsibility for mission and ministry in any place belongs primarily to the people of God in that place. In most settings, we do not send ministry to a community in the form of a professional, seminary trained rector or vicar who might minister to and on behalf of the baptized. Rather, we seek to develop the ministry of all the baptized in each community. Seminary trained persons serve as resource, offering support and encouragement, sharing in the ongoing formation and education of God's people living the Baptismal Covenant.

We use the term mutual ministry to describe this partnership. It is a partnership between God and God's people. It is a partnership among all God's people, among congregations on the regional level, on the diocesan level and beyond to the province, the national church and the world. In all arenas, we seek to extend this partnership beyond our denominational boundaries, working together with our sisters and brothers of other faith traditions as well.

The role of the missioner is not to deliver ministry, but to midwife the birth of giftedness already present in the baptized into ministry for mission. In each congregation a unique ministry development strategy is designed and pursued by the members of the congregation themselves, supported and nurtured by the regional missioners...

The Diocese of Minnesota offers some good links here and here.

The Diocese of Oregon has a Total Ministry site here.

The Diocese of Northern California offers a few links here.

The Diocese of Northern Michigan has been engaging this approach to ministry for over twenty years. You may recall that this innovative approach caused a few problems when they elected Kevin Thew Forrester as their Bishop/Ministry Developer. Actually, they selected an Episcopal Ministry Support Team, of which Kevin was only one member. The "process" raised more than a few eyebrows. Then, some of the more toxic blogs found out Kevin practiced Buddhist meditation (lions and tigers and Buddhists...oh my!) and the witch hunt commenced. Old sermons and iffy liturgies were dug up, and Kevin did not receive the required consents.

As you might imagine, the people of Northern Michigan were deeply troubled by all the ugly things being said about them and their choices for their Episcopal Ministry Team. Tomorrow, they will gather for their Diocesan Convention and plan for their future. Hopefully, they will be able to shrug off all the mud slung their way, and will not be tempted to abandon their ideals, which I happen to believe are the way of the future for us all.

Back in 1994 Northern Michigan made some significant changes to the way they run their Conventions. For example:

Every baptized person is entitled to seat and voice at Convention.

Each congregation (regardless of size) may send four voting delegates.

Clergy have vote if they are one of the four selected delegates from the congregation in which they worship.

No voting "by orders".

This should be a fascinating Convention. I think I'll join them. But, for this trip, perhaps I'll leave my clerical collar at home.

More tomorrow, from Escanaba, Michigan!

J.

Swimming the Tiber? I'll Pass, But Thanks for the Offer

So, Rome has decided to stick their nose into the current Anglican unpleasantness. Apparently, some Roman Catholic spin doctors seem to be unable to resist the temptation to use this occasion to take a jab or two at various Anglican leaders.

Now, will I use this opportunity to take a couple of pot shots at the Roman Catholic Church? I think not. My experience in local "Ministerial Associations" in which the Roman Catholic clergy participated has been that the Catholics told better jokes, served better liquor, and had a better grasp of sacramental theology. So, I'm not inclined to belittle their tradition.

I know such a swim is not for me, or for most Anglicans that I know. It is simply not an option, for numerous reasons. But I also realize that it may be a real consideration for some folks. For those Anglicans who are so inclined to join Rome, my only response is to say "Go with God."

But, for those who may be considering it, I hope that you take a look at Bosco Peter's commentary before making any final decisions. Here's part of it:

...Anglican orders are not accepted by the Vatican. Anglican “priests” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as priests will have to be ordained twice (or at least conditionally ordained twice). And they will have to be males. Anglican “bishops” joining Anglican Personal Ordinariates in order to function as bishops will have to be ordained thrice (or at least conditionally ordained thrice). And they will have to be males. And celibate...

Additionally, if later on you get upset by something your bishop does, don't even think of trying to leave and take your building with you. Such "congregational" ideas might get some play in the "via media," but I can guarantee you that they won't find a friendly reception in Rome.

In other news, I'm leaving for the Diocese of Nevada in the morning, to participate in their Diocesan Convention. The theme is "I Love to Tell the Story." I'm looking forward to it.

My daughter lives about 2 hours away, so we'll have some time togther as well. Since that area of the world is closer to both my daughters, I've often thought about retiring there some day, so I'll also be checking out a couple of horse ranches that I have my eye on.

Be back on Monday.

J.

Keith Ackerman Removed From the Ordained Minstry of This Church

Press release is here, which states, in part:

According to the statement, Jefferts Schori had thanked Ackerman in an October 7 letter "for your follow up note regarding your plans to function as a bishop in the Diocese of Bolivia in the Province of the Southern Cone. As you know, there is no provision for transferring a bishop to another Province. I am therefore releasing you from the obligations of ordained ministry in this Church.”

A little background regarding the former Bishop of Quincy might be in order.

He was elected as the Bishop of Quincy in 1994. As he has always been opposed to the ordination of women, there was some question as to if he would receive the necessary consents. Obviously, he did, with less difficulty than Jack Iker, no doubt because Keith strives very hard to be a "nice guy."

My experience is that he is indeed a "nice guy." He does not say or do the rude and obnoxious kind of things for which some of his peers are well known. He is courteous and pleasant, saying little most of the time. I am told he is an excellent retreat conductor.

However, following GC2003, he did attend the American Anglican Council's "A Place to Stand" conference in Texas, which was held in October, 2003. He supported the statement that came out of that conference, "Call to Action". Here's just a couple of points included in that statement:

6. We redirect our financial resources, to the fullest extent possible,toward biblically orthodox mission and ministry, and away from those structures that support the unrighteous actions of the General Convention. We will support our partners in the Anglican Communion.

7. We appeal to the Primates of the Anglican Communion to intervene in the
Episcopal Church to:

1. Discipline those bishops in the Episcopal Church who, by their actions,
have departed from biblical faith and order;

2. Guide the realignment of Anglicanism in North America;

3. Encourage orthodox bishops as they extend episcopal oversight, pastoral
care, and apostolic mission across current diocesan boundaries; and

4. Support isolated and beleaguered parishes and individuals in their life
and witness as faithful Anglican Christians...

Redirect funds, punish TEC, start the "realignment" (code for replacement of TEC), and engage in border crossings. These tactics were all supported by Bp. Ackerman.

Bp. Ackerman is also the President of Forward in Faith North America, which is an Anglo-Catholic group that rejects women's ordination as well as gay and lesbian ordinations.

As President of this group, Ackerman has made a number of brief statements on various developments over the years, for instance;

How pleased he was to get invited to GAFCON

.

How disappointed he was that his friend, John David Schofield, was deposed for trying to steal an entire diocese.

How saddened he was when Robert Duncan was deposed for trying to run off with his diocese.

So, as you can see, we have every reason to assume that Keith Ackerman, regardless of his pleasant manners, was one of the leaders of the attempted coup from the very beginning.

Following GC2006, Ackerman led the Diocese of Quincy in their attempt to seek Alternative Primatial Oversight, since the new Presiding Bishop was, in their minds, of the wrong gender.

On October 29, 2008, Ackerman announced that he would retire on November 1 (in three days). A week later, the diocese's annual synod voted to leave TEC and join the Anglican Province of the Southern Cone. No doubt Ackerman felt that this manuever would protect him from being deposed.

After "retiring," he continues to serve as President of Forward in Faith and on the executive committee of ACNA (formerly the Common Cause, the Network and the American Anglican Council...same individuals, different organizational names).

One of his most recent adventures during retirement was to participate in exporting schism to other shores:

FIVE English Bishops are to take part in the launch of the Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans in London on July 6, expressing the breadth of support the fellowship, which had its roots in the Gafcon conference in Jerusalem last year, is experiencing...

...Bishop Ackerman, who is President of Forward in Faith in the USA, said: “One of the reasons I am really looking forward to being with my friends in England is so that I might be able to share with them the anointing of the Holy Spirit that has occurred at this gathering (of the installation of Archbishop Bob Duncan as Primate of the Anglican Church in North America at Christ Church Plano on June 24) here in Texas...

Did you notice where he is headed next? Bolivia. Yes. He is teaming up with the notorious pirate bishop of Bolivia! Imagine that.

It is sad to see such a nice guy having to renounce his ministry in this Church. But, in light of his record, and the company he's currently keeping, I think he's more than earned the same fate as the rest of the scoundrels.

J.

The Emergence of the Hidden Wisdom of God's People

In the last three posts, I've been talking about shifts that are happening in our culture, and how these shifts are impacting the Church. Authority, or the "freedom to act," no longer resides only with our institutional leaders, or even with the scholars. Instead, the authority rests within complex networks of relationships. Truth claims are refined and tempered as they run back and forth through this web of networks. While it is understood that scripture and tradition are part of this network, it is the living traditions, the people of God, informed through a discipline of prayer, study and action, that will discern the movement of God in the world today.

Last week, Bishop Peter Selby gave an address at the Inclusive Church's residential conference. It is entitled When the Word on the Street is Resist. It is quite good, and contains much worth noting. Mark offers some commentary on it here. Tobias offers a slightly different take on it here. But, what really caught my eye, as it is directly related to our recent conversations, is the section that Richard chose to highlight.

Here is that section again:

...First, though, a story: a colleague and his partner were to register their partnership, and a number of us were invited. There was no suggestion that there would be a blessing of this union, or anything else that might cause incongruity or unrecognisability. But it did so happen that the ceremony was arranged to take place closely after the usual time of the eucharist in the local Church, to which the guests were also invited. Not surprisingly prayers were offered for the pair, and the eucharist proceeded as usual - or not quite.

When time came for the distribution of the Sacrament, nothing had been said about what was to happen. But the congregation knew what was to happen: they remained in their seats until the pair whose partnership was to be registered had received together. Where was this unscripted choreography learned? Obviously through the attendance of many in the congregation at wedding eucharists. But this was not of course a wedding - or was it? Might not this event in the distribution of the Sacrament have been a picture of what at an earlier time the Archbishop would have called 'The Body's Grace', the mediation of truth through the liturgical actions of the people, while the official Church was still struggling to avoid an affirmation it was unwilling to make.

I tell the story not to argue against those others who have decided simply to disobey the rules. I tell it rather to show that while the Primates of our Communion labour at the question of incongruity, a different perception of the truth is being recognised in the actions of the people. Nor am I telling the story to suggest that actions of that kind can serve as a substitute for a just and faithful resolution of a conflict which has hurt too many and lasted too long. I tell the story because even as hierarchies struggle to maintain rigidities in place, even as persons are hurt and their ministries denied, something else is going on, namely the emergence of the hidden wisdom of God's people, a choreography of promise, a recognition which the official Church will surely have to take seriously. That will not be (as the Archbishop quite wrongly suggests) because the Church will have ended up conforming to social mores rather than critiqued them; it will be because truth has been discovered precisely in the context of biblical and theological reflection and acted out in worship; and what the pew sheet I quoted accurately called 'the current panic' will not outlast the God whose message is not to be afraid.

Do you see the significance of those words? Here is the key line again:

"...even as hierarchies struggle to maintain rigidities in place, even as persons are hurt and their ministries denied, something else is going on, namely the emergence of the hidden wisdom of God's people, a choreography of promise, a recognition which the official Church will surely have to take seriously..."

This is an excellent example of the kind of "authority" I've been trying to find words to talk about.

Listen for the Word of God. And expect that Word to come from the living traditions, who give voice to "the God whose message is not to be afraid."

J.

The House of Bishops: An Institutional Challenge

Let's talk about Bishops for awhile. Let's start by considering a couple of quotes. First, from our discussion of authorityin a post-modern world:

...The time of prince bishops and cardinal rectors has come and gone. Any authority as leaders they continue to express is granted to them, not by the nature of their office, but by the authority of the gathered community. And, if they fail to respond to the needs of the community, alternative authorities will be sought out...

Then there is an essay by Tobias entitled The Coinherent Bishop. Here's part of it:

...The bishop acting outside or apart from the church as an episcopus vagans is like an electric fan unplugged from its source of power. Its blades may show some signs of movement in a strong wind, but are of no effect in actually generating a breeze. And the same is true of any minister, ordered or lay, who amputated from the body of fellow-believers attempts still to function as an organ of the body.

We are, in the long run, all in this together. Lone wolves go hungry. And shepherds are nothing without their sheep.

Now, before saying any more, it is time for some disclaimers.

Most Bishops that I have known would probably admit, if pushed, that they are fully aware that their authority comes from the people. There a many highly competent and gifted leaders within the House of Bishops. Some I would even call friends. Others have been there for me as my pastor during very difficult times in my life. A few have even served as the voice that called me back when I wandered too far off the path.

I am very comfortable being "a person under the authority" of a Bishop. In some ways, I find it liberating. I am free to function as a conduit of grace, as the Bishop's representative, knowing that there is someone to whom I am accountable, and one with the authority to tell me "no," even at those times when I hadn't yet sought permission.

Having said that, there are also a few other things we may need to admit regarding our Bishops. I was at a conference last year at which one brave soul made a very interesting observation. If we consider the typical "career path" of most Bishops, they were a curate, then the vicar or rector of a small church, then rector of a large church, and then were elected Bishop. Along the way, there is no doubt that they refined many of their gifts. But rarely did they have the opportunity to create anything "new." So, when someone comes up with a "new" or "innovative" idea, especially one that might have some impact on the budget, some Bishops get nervous. To take that a step further, if you mention "church planting," you can bet you'll set off a few alarm bells. You see, unfortunately, planting new churches has acquired a big price tag. It doesn't require one, but that's what the "experts" have given it.

Beyond the expected aversion to "innovation," we also have the constant "authority" pendelum swing between the House of Bishops and the House of Deputies at General Convention. The latest swing might be seen in the reaction to the way B033 was passed at GC2006. As you might recall, the actions of the House of Bishops at that Convention gave rise to a new crisis of trust.

Sensing this swing, and concerned about further loss of their authority, at GC2009 there was a motion by the youngest member of the House of Bishops, and supported by a few other Bishops, to kill a somewhat controversial resolution, and replace it with a "pastoral letter" from the Bishops. Thankfully, some of the more reasonable minds present thwarted the attempt, resulting in the passing of the piece of legislation.

So, there's just a couple of considerations regarding our Bishops for you to chew on.

Based on the above, and your own experiences, here is the question that I want you to ponder:

In your experience, overall, are Bishops a blessing or a bane?

Be kind. We do have a few folks wearing purple shirts who drop in once in awhile.

J.

Three Shifts

In the previous post that wandered around the issue of "authority," I spoke about "networks," which is but one shift in the way humans are perceiving reality today. I now want to add two more shifts that I think the Church must recognize, if we are to effectively continue our mission. These three shifts are:

1. Networks - relationships are formed through complex webs of networks, often formed around leisure activities, family and friendships. Geography often plays a minor role. Network societies can both connect and fragment, as well as include and exclude.

2. Mobility - as the "local" gives way to the "global" perspective, new options regarding where we put down roots have opened up. In some cases, the concept of "roots" (home) has been completely redefined, with "place" being given a lower priority. This can provide more freedom and opportunity, but also undermines long term commitments. It is also cause for some tensions between those who have the means to be more mobile, and those who feel "stuck" in a particular place.

3. Consumer societies - previous generations found their identity in what they produced, but we now find our identity in what we consume. The core value of society has moved from ‘progress’ to ‘choice.’ We are moving towards a “personalized scale" in which ”it must fit me exactly” is an essential value. Among other things, this will affect the way people evaluate truth claims. “Truth” will be treated as a commodity. Consumer societies provide more choices, while also reinforcing the illusion of individualism.

For further reading:
Mission-Shaped Church
(the entire book, from which some of the above content was drawn, can be found in pdf format here)

The Great Emergence
(some videos of Phyllis Tickle speaking about the content of this book and a study guide can be found here)

Next: Some specific institutional challenges.

J.

Where is the Authority?

At a recent event at Seabury-Western. I was asked to address the following question:

What does society's shift from hierarchy to network theory mean for our understanding of authority, scripture and the institutional church?

As a simple explanation of "network theory," think of the way the internet has changed our society. Among other implications, consider the ways that we group ourselves today. Communities, or a sense of community, are now almost completely disconnected from geography. Instead, in today's society. people are grouped along the lines of the following priorities:

1. Hobbies (or special interests, as in "the Anglican Wars")
2. Family
3. Work colleagues

Geography is no longer the primary basis for community. People are now defining communities through leisure activities, work and friendships.

This has an impact on a number of ways in which we have traditionally understood "church." To begin, I want to talk about how this shift has caused us to reconsider our understanding of "authority."

The term "authority," as traditionally used in Christian circles, is derived from the Greek concept of "exousia," which is consistently translated into English as "authority." However, the Greek concept of authority is far more complex in comparison to our normal understanding of the term. We tend to think of "authority" as a tool of domination. But Jesus was clear that is not what he meant; "The Gentiles lord their authority (kata-exousia) over one another, but not so with you!"

If you look at the different ways the term "exousia" is used in scripture, it does indeed sometimes refer to power, strength and control, but also competency, mastery, liberty and freedom. In other words, the one with "exousia" is the one who has "the freedom to act." Jesus, as the Son of God, speaks and acts with authority. As we faithfully follow him, we also receive, to a more limited degree, this same "freedom to act."

So, who has the authority? Who has the freedom to act? Well, in a network society, that depends. If the traditional persons who are considered to have authority refuse to act, the network will function temporarily in its place.

An example of how this works can be seen in my previous story, The Boys of Hall. The crisis was the unexpected death of a member of our cottage in reform school. The institution (the traditional authority) did not act. No memorial service, counseling sessions, etc. were offered. Consequently, the boys took on the limited authority that they had and organized their own memorial service.

As the person that they identified as having the most experience with the bible and Christian prayer, I was asked to lead this service. Note that the authority to function in such a capacity was very limited. It ended when the memorial service we held in the kitchen of Hall Cottage ended. I then returned to the role of just another throw-away kid who had broken various laws of the land, and so had been placed in that institution. After we had grieved the loss of one of our own, I returned to the role of just another of many boys of Hall.

I think such an understanding of "authority" might be helpful for the Church today. If the "institution," for whatever reason, is unable to respond appropriately to the crisis, the local community will respond anyway, with or without the blessing of the institution.

Those appointed to lead this response may be drawn from the ranks of the ordained clergy. But, then again, the one granted that particular authority may just be a fifteen year old convicted car thief and drug addict.

Being too deeply identified with the institution, especially if it is an incompetent institution, is not always a plus. In a network society, the needs will be met, even if it means traveling outside the boundaries of traditional authority structures.

This is not simply my opinion, by the way. This is how things are unfolding in this postmodern world. The time of prince bishops and cardinal rectors has come and gone. Any authority as leaders they continue to express is granted to them, not by the nature of their office, but by the authority of the gathered community. And, if they fail to respond to the needs of the community, alternative authorities will be sought out.

Your thoughts?

J.

Mission and Ministry in the Great Emergence

This program is being offered by Seabury-Western Theological Seminary next week. It is based on Phyllis Tickle's book The Great Emergence.

Phyllis will be giving the keynote address on Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning. Among the other presenters will be Nadia Bolz-Weber, Winnie Varghese, John Denson and Susan Harlow. I'll be facilitating the Thursday morning seminar.

So, if you can arrange a trip on short notice, come join us. Or, if you're in the Chicago area and just want to get together for a cup of coffee, drop me an email.

J.

The Anglican Dominionists

What follows is a review of some of the events within the Anglican Communion over the last decade. The information contained within this summary can be supported by numerous other websites. Rather than focus on those other sources, I'm going to just tell the story, and then add a number of links at the end for further reading. If you request more information about a particular item, I'll be happy to point you to a source.

My main premise is that the current "schism" within The Episcopal Church is primarily being led by "Dominionists," which is a subset of Christians who are working to take over every aspect of common life in the United States. They want to replace the Constitution with biblical law. Dominionists are often referred to in the media as the "Religious Right," and have called themselves The Moral Majority, The Christian Coalition, and various other titles.

Anglicans are too reasonable for such unusual ideas to ever get a strong foothold within our tradition. However, these ideas have found their way in, primarily through the Americian Anglican Council (AAC), which became The Anglican Communion Network (ACN), which became the Anglican Church in North America (ACNA). The leadership rosters of all three of these groups contains a very similar list of names. Same players, same game. In this case, I am suggesting that the game was not simply disagreement with the majority of Episcopalians regarding the role of women, gays and lesbians within the Church, but was actually far more ambitious: the replacement of The Episcopal Church with their own brand of extremist Anglicanism. This, of course, was simply doing their small part to further the overall plan by the Religious Right; to replace all leaders, secular and religious, with those who are willing to make biblical law the law of the land.

Most Dominionists, especially Anglican Dominionists, will never publically admit to their ultimate goal of making the United States into a theocracy. Such matters are discussed only when they are alone with their own kind. This makes it rather difficult to track such troubling ideas. However, it does not make it impossible.

The most extreme form of Dominionism is "Christian Reconstructionism," which strives to incorporate all 613 laws from the biblical code into secular law. That would include capital punishment for adultery, blasphemy, heresy, homosexual behavior, idolatry, prostitution, and sorcery. R.J. Rushdoony, author of The Institutes of Biblical Law, is credited as the founder of this particular sect.

One of Rushdoony's most devout followers was Howard F. Ahmanson Jr., a reclusive millionaire from California. Ahmanson served on the Board of Rushdoony's Chalcedon Institute for 23 years, and was at his bedside when he died.

Howard Ahmanson, and his wife Roberta, became members of St. James Episcopal Church in Newport Beach, California. The rector of that parish was Canon David Anderson.

In 1995, the American Anglican Council was formed, in response to certain developments within The Episcopal Church. It was funded primarily through a group of large donors, of which Ahmanson was one. Ahmanson's support was considered so important to the AAC that there was some discussion about including his name in the letterhead of their stationary. Internal memos revealed that the leadership of the AAC were willing to do almost anything to keep Ahmanson on board. Soon after that, Ahmanson's rector, David Anderson, became President and CEO of the AAC, a postion he still holds today.

The AAC moved into an office in Washingtom DC with another organization, the Institute on Religion and Democracy. Dianne Knippers, President of the IRD, was the original treasurer for the AAC. Roberta Ahmanson served on the board of the IRD.

The IRD has a long history of anti-communist activity, especially during the Reagan era. At one point, the rhetoric from Knippers resulted in the erroneous identification of a group of missionaries in Nicaragua as being a communist front. Their clinics became targets for terrorists.

The primary goal of the IRD is to replace the leadership of the mainline churches with their own conservative leaders. A reading of some of their material makes it clear that they continue to be active players in the Religious Right, and are very clearly of the Dominionist mindset.

Now that the IRD and the AAC were, for all intents and purposes, one organization (sharing board members, wealthy donors and the same mailing address) they began to focus on tearing down The Episcopal Church. After this alliance was formed, one of their early moves was to launch a smear campaign against Gene Robinson, who had just been elected as bishop of New Hampshire. In 2003, Ahmanson gave the IRD funds for this campaign, which was launched by Fred Barnes, a member of the IRD's board. Robinson received the necessary consents in spite of the IRD's efforts.

Such techniques were used against the leadership of the Methodist and Presbyterian Churches as well. Eventually, the outrage expressed towards the IRD by a number of people within the mainline denominations was cause for the AAC to distance themselves from the organization. They set up their own office in Atlanta. It is also worth noting that Ephraim Radner, affiliated with the Anglican Communion Institute, also resigned from his seat on the IRD board, which he had occupied for many years.

Howard Ahmanson has become even more reclusive, but as recently as June of 2008 showed up at GAFCON, an international group of Anglicans supportive of the efforts to destroy TEC and replace it with their own entity. It is also worth noting that Ahmanson was one of the major contributers towards the effort to pass Proposition 8 in California.

The IRD continues to attempt to have an impact within TEC, with limited success.

The story continues, but that's enough for now.

Here's a few links for further reading:

The Spread of Theocracy

Following the Money

Theocracy Watch

Avenging Angel of the Religious Right

The Mystery Man Behind Proposition 8

IRD and the CEPAD Affair

President of IRD Should Resign

Fox News, Falls Church and the IRD

That should keep you busy for awhile.

J.

UPDATE: Lifting the Rock notes that the keynote speaker for the 2009 ACNA Clergy and Spouse Retreat is none other than Wellington Boone, a well known Dominionist. Imagine that.

A Review?

Perhaps I have taken it for granted that those who visit here are familiar with the background of the current "Anglican Wars." Do we need to review some of the basics?

For instance, is everyone aware of the difference between a "conservative" and an "extreme conservative"? If you are not, then, for a quick review, I recommend you read this post from back in 2006; Don't Call Them Conservatives.

My assertion is that those who claim to be Anglicans while they do everything they can to bury The Episcopal Church are an extension of the radical Religious Right. They are very dangerous people. I can once again connect the dots for you, if you would like.

Why might such a series be of value? Because I think I bring a rather unusual perspective to the matter. You see, besides being a former drug addict and car thief, once upon a time I was also an active member of the extreme religious right.

I must confess to the following:

1. When I returned to Christianity, it was of the Pentecostal variety. The supernatural manifestations trumped everything else. A literal reading of the bible came along with that.
2. As one example of this, I once burned a number of my books, because I consider them "occult," and so a danger to my family.
3. I picketed abortion clinics more than once.
4. I believed we were living in the end times. I kept a "survivial kit" ready in the basement, which including many firearms and ammunition.
5. I once voted for Ronald Reagan (believe it or not, that is the most difficult confession to make on this list!).

That gives you an idea of the strange world in which I returned to my faith. I had not moved far from those rather extreme positions by the time my Bishop sent me to Nashotah House. As a matter of fact, my first sermon after entering seminary at my home parish was a point by point refutation of some statement made by Bp. Spong. I even handed out brochures for Episcopalians United (an extremists group, rooted in John Howe's parish in Truro, VA) at the end of the service.

What made me question these extreme postions? Primarily two factors, revealed to me during my time at Nashotah House. I received an excellent theological education (thank you Jim Griffiss, Joe Hunt, David Ruppe and David Schlaeffer), and was able to witness first hand the unhealthy level of anger being manifested by the other extremists at the House.

That was just the beginning, of course. Over the last 25 years, I have continued to learn and to grow.

I am making this confession so that you will know the reason why I believe that I am somewhat uniquely qualified to connect the dots between these so-called Anglicans and the extreme religious right, who are currently shouting down women in wheelchairs at town hall meetings and ready to grant Sarah Palin sainthood. It is because I've been there. It takes one to know one, so to speak.

So, anyone interested in such a review?

J.

The Right Not to Tolerate the Intolerant

Compliments of Dave Tepper:

We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
—Karl Popper, "The Open Society and Its Enemies".

Thanks, Dave.

J.

UPDATE: Apparently, some of the more "intolerant" Anglicans elsewhere are unaware of the work of Karl Popper, considered one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. They have lifted the above quote, posted it on their site, and are having great fun using it for target practice.

In an effort to educate the intolerant, here is the entirety of Popper's Paradox of Tolerance:

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies, as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal.

Extremists Demand a "War Chief"

There has been some suggestion from a few folks that Episcopalians need to calm down and play nice. I have no doubt that these sentiments are well intentioned. However, I continue to believe that they are misguided. We cannot simply ignore those who lie, steal and threaten violence against members of the Episcopal Church. That would simply be unethical.

Let me give you an example: If I was walking down the street, and saw someone being beaten and robbed, what would be my moral obligation? Hopefully we can all agree that ignoring the attack would not be an option. We would have to do whatever we could do to stop the violence.

There are parallels with that scenario and what is unfolding within the Anglican Communion. There are leaders within the Communion who have threatened and engaged in acts of violence against those with whom they disagree, in the attempt to gain personal power for themselves.

One would think that the actions of Peter Akinola would be sufficient evidence to suggest that the danger of violence is very real in some parts of the Anglican Communion. What is even more alarming is that to date, no one in a leadership position within the Anglican Communion has condemned Akinola's violence. In fact, he has been allowed to establish a satellite in the United States. How anyone claiming to be a follower of Jesus Christ could align themselves with such a disturbed leader is beyond my comprehension.

Did Akinola need to export his violence to the shores of North America? Not really. Threats of violence and the language of war have always been an integral element in the strategy of a handful of extremists in the US who have been plotting to destroy the Episcopal Church long before Akinola strode onto the stage. As a matter of fact, there is evidence that suggests that it was North American extremists who ushered Akinola onto that global stage, for their own nefarious purposes.

The North American extremists recognize that the tactics that work in Nigeria will not work so well in the US, so their violent intentions are normally carefully veiled within secret memos and closed meetings. But, every once in awhile, they slip out.

For instance, consider this 2003 memo, in which Bishops supporting the AAC/Network/ACNA (same group, different names) "commit to the guerrilla warfare of the next year." You can read more about the early plots of this guerrilla group to stamp out TEC here.

In case you might imagine that such examples of "war" language are just a bit of colorful allegory, let me suggest you take a look at this thread of comments from a notorious testosterone-driven website that claims to be Anglican. They are proud of the fact that they've got guns, and know how to use them. Challenges to their most unChristian threats are met with silence. To this day, that unfortunate thread remains up for all the world to see. Apparently, they honestly believe that such blatant attempts at intimidation actually help their cause. And, judging from the reactions of some Anglicans, which basically involves sticking their heads in the sand, perhaps they do.

More recently, it was almost humorous to hear this "slip of the tongue" by the leader of the American Anglican Council (more about that group of guerrillas later):

...Fr. Ashey compared the AAC to the Special Forces of the U.S. military.

“Like Special Forces, we go behind the scenes and we blow up things,” he said, adding quickly that what the AAC blows up is principalities and powers...

Oh, I bet he added that second part quite quickly, once the shock in the eyes of some of the reporters present registered.

This isn't the first time the AAC has proudly described themselves using war language. Back in 2005, David Anderson, leader of the AAC at that time, described his organization this way:

...We consult with a large number of our constituency on a variety of issues including assistance with legal, strategic and communications issues. This includes some covert activity! One of the major problems we face in the AAC is that a large portion of what we do is under the radar or behind the curtain...

We might need to refresh our memories regarding the history of this particular "covert operative". You have to understand David Anderson to understand the AAC, as for many years we could say he was the AAC.

Before David "I like a good fight" Anderson jumped to Nigeria, he was the rector of St. James, Newport Beach, which is the parish who has asked for their case to be heard by the Supreme Court. David then launched the American Anglican Council, partially bankrolled by Howard Ahmanson, a former parishioner and previous disciple of the infamous Rushdoony. You may recall that Rushdoony was the grandfather of the Dominionists, who advocated for, among other things, capital punishment for all gays and lesbians.

Anderson set himself up in the offices of the Institute on Religion and Democracy, where he continued to build his reputation as "that angry guy" among most Anglicans. He was rewarded for his lack of self control by being issued a mitre by Abp. Peter Akinola of Nigeria. Birds of a feather and all that.

The mitre has not seemed to tame David at all. His violent rhetoric continues:

...What do these days in the Anglican World Communion call for, a Peace Chief or a War Chief? I would argue that this present time requires a War Chief for the defense of the Gospel and the Anglican Communion. Those Anglicans who are proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ are beset on several sides by those who hate the true Gospel: humanism and materialism attack from one side, militant Islam from another, and heretical distortions of the Christian message from still another. The church needs leaders who correctly perceive the clear and present danger, have a workable vision of how to go forward in this crisis, and the energy, willingness and focus to actually lead. Without this leadership, the Communion will move into chaos and the advantage will be ceded to those who would reshape the Gospel and the discipline of the historic faith...

Sure sounds like yet another declaration of war to me. Unfortunately, it seems that the justifications for such warfare are rooted in a bad case of paranoia and a penchant for making false accusations. Do check out Susan Russell's analysis of David's letter. Mark Harris offers some good insights as well.

And by the way, as Mark points out, take care not to be hoodwinked by some of the other covert operatives of this war party. They like having lots of different names. This group actually thinks that some will believe them to be "moderate" conservatives. The evidence suggests otherwise. Jim Naughton provides some good commentary on the latest ACI statement here.

So, you are witnessing a beating and robbery taking place. What will you do? Ignore it? Or do whatever you can do to stop it?

J.