Lest we forget that the Church is just as ridiculous

I am ever conscious when I write about anything institutional be it politics, education, or social issues that the Church is not much different. Indeed in many senses it is is more ridiculous than most!

Blogging, as I have been, about the raucous political events that no sees Australia with its first woman Prime minister, I have noted how commentators often seem obsessed by what women wear.

Well lest we forget my aforementioned truth that the Church is just as bizarre, here's a little story about how one of my heroes, Bishop Katherine Jefferts-Schori who happens to be the Presiding Bishop of the American Episcopal Church, was trifled with during a recent visit to Southwark Cathedral in London.

Apparently the Dean of Southwark made the mistake of asking what protocols might need to apply and was told make from the Archbishop of Canterbury's office, that she should not wear her hat!! (that is, the special hat called the 'mitre' which recalls the tongues of flames which came on the first apostles at Pentecost)

This curiosity is all the more curious when you consider there had been other occasions where she had been seen out in public hat and all (see the follow up here!!)

Bishop K kindly went along with this power-play and carried her hat!

In a Communion, where we have at times prided ourselves on the fact that at least we can be civil. It is offensive when such pettiness takes place.

When Bishops smack each other down

I have often remarked that one of the great problems for Anglicans is that we are so polite that we often don't tell it like it really is.

So thanks to the Dean of Darwin for drawing our attention to recent duelling between the American and English Primates and the commentary on it by Diana Butler Bass an American religious scholar (here).

Ms BB indeed draws our attention to the different approaches that are conflicting the Anglican Communion at this time, will we have order imposed from the top...even though it is styled in the language of 'consensus' and 'covenant'...or will we continue to do what Anglicans have ever done; which is to embrace as our fundamental right the toleration of difference.

Butler Bass does a good job of bringing this into the light at a time when we are being encouraged to look at what I suspect is a poor process for Anglicans that of 'covenanting'.

I am yet to be convinced that this so-called covenant is actually one of mutual respect, and not one of control. If this is the case then it simply will not do.

I am, as I say, 'yet to be convinced'. This does not mean that I can't or won't be, but at the moment I am not so convicted.

Loss of faith

The Archbishop of Canterbury recently lamented the loss of Christian culture (here) and laid the blame at the feet of 'pluralistic' education.

I have some sympathy with this. In promoting everything, we promote nothing. At a local school recently year 6 and 7 children were told to look at SE Asia and pick a dominant religion to investigate. They were specifically told not to look at Christianity. The teacher wasn't being (she thought) anti-Christian she was rather making the assumption that most kids in that school would know about Christianity. I think this assumption makes more assumptions than it asserts.

I well remember when I was a teacher in the 70s, our principal challenging the school over the Easter weekend to find out what Easter was all about.

In those days most of the kids had some idea it was about Jesus and his crucifixion. Not so sure that is true. I certainly can no longer assume 30 years aftyer I was ordained that a random group of Aussies can more or less sustain the Lord's Prayer with a little help from their friends. This is not, I think, because of an embarrassment about praying publicly. It is because by and large we have no clue.

Strangely the army did quite a lot to sustain religious culture. So, service men and women of WWII and to a lesser extent Vietnam, probably were made to recite the Lord's Prayer on parade. Now that there are less of them they don't permeate a funeral in the same way so you can't always be assured even the 'traditional' words will be picked up.

Does it matter? The loss of common heritage. I think it does. I always go back to the way the Bible stories permeate English literature.

How on earth do you (for example) understand Wilfred Owen's devastating poem. The Parable of the Young Man and the Old...if you don't understand what the sacrifice of Isaac is all about, or that it comes from the bible, or what sacrifice is about?

I think Rowan Williams is right, not just or only from the religious point of view. But from the cultural point fo view also.

It's a bit of a worry

We got a report on Lambeth yesterday, from our two Bishops.

It was, I must say a bit of a worry, about what might now happen.

Archbishop Rowan Williams has asked for three moratoriums

• There be no consecrations of partnered gay people to the episcopate
• That blessing of same-sex relationships cease
• That cross border interventions by Bishops outside their own dioceses cease
  

Our Bishop was obviously pained to explain what the implications of this might be for him and our Diocese, and in a very laboured and careful way sought to explain how he anticipated this might be implemented.

I make two observations on this:

One, that he actually only addressed the first two moratoria. When I questioned what the implications of the third moratoria might be for this Diocese; and asked whether it was really a sop to those who did not like the first two he was rather defensive.

Given that we have already had cross-border incursions in this country, and it does not seem entirely unlikely that they could happen in this Diocese, it is naive to think that it does not or will not apply . There have also been internal cross-border moves which have not been without controversy and indeed pain. My impression is that the Bishop was suggesting that this sort of thing might be OK.

My point? That moratorium number 3 is of a different order from 1&2.

My second observation is that there was a disproportionate focus on the the same-sex moratoria. The bishop, it seemed to me, actually went further than Lambeth which talked about not consecrating bishops who were in same sex relationships. Jeffery seemed to extend this to ordinations to priests.

I am not aware that any bishop in this Diocese has actually knowingly ordained a homosexual person, let alone one living in a committed same-sex relationship. That such have been ordained is evident. By and large the strategy seems to have been to not ask the question on the one hand, or to not answer it on the other.

I was left feeling sad (yet again) about what this meant for any men and women of homosexual orientation in our midst. About how they must feel. When good old Fr Andy got animated and questioned whether we had really taken the responsibility to listen to gay people, the Bishop offered to lend us a couple of books!

Andy said..."Why would the gay community want to talk to us when we want to persecute them?"...was there a tear in his eye? The Bishop looked unknowingly at what this exchange might mean.

I think it means we have certainly not taken seriously the need to listen. We have not even really gone through the motions. And once again we allow a vulnerable minority to bear the suffering of us all!

As I say, it's a bit of a worry isn't it?

After word and clarification

Since I first wrote this the Archbishop has clarified with me the fact that I am mistaken about his having gone further than Lambeth he says to me:

"You suggested that the Lambeth resolution related (only) to ordinations to the
episcopate. This may be what people have focussed on as a result of events
in the US, however the text is “nor ordaining those involved in same gender
unions”. The reference is not simply to the episcopate and I am not (if I
might quote you) going further than Lambeth. "

Couldn't give a fig!

Many of you, dear blog-readers, couldn't give a fig that the Lambeth Conference is happening at this time. It has had a lot more build up than usual, and some of the commentary is bizarre to say the least.
One of my faithful sent me (via her faithful minion) a quite bizarre commentary from the International Express. The writer said (broadly paraphrasing):

I, like many English people, consider myself to be C of E. I do not go to church very often, if at all. I don't believe anything. And I don't support it in any way. But I think it should be there when I want it.

Those of us who minister in this Church know this attitude well. It is the price you pay for establishment. It is the cost of social respectability. It is the fickle bystander saying I want the joy but none of the pain.
This same commentator then went on on to say that the present Archbishop of Canterbury is a waste of space, and has been totally useless since his appointment. No evidence was cited other than hearsay and the wild rantings of the press. There was no subtlety to the analysis...indeed you could not call it analysis...it said he likes gays, he likes Muslims. He's too smart for his own good. Why doesn't he just kick out the poofters, send all Muslims back to...where ever.
God save us from this sort of b**lsh*t.
If anything will save the Anglican Communion at this time, it is Rowan Williams insistence that he will not allow one side to bully the other. That he will not jettison the fundamental inclusivity of Anglicanism as if is were of no account.
That this is difficult and a cause of some pain is clear. But we are the sisters and brothers of a man they crucified because he wouldn't take the easy way out!
Bishop Duleep de Chickera of Colombo preached on Sunday a wonderful sermon on the nature of Communion in Canterbury Cathedral and it is good to hear the more measured voice of our Church being heard (see here)

"There is space equally for anyone and everyone, regardless of colour, ability, gender or sexual orientation," he said, in a passionate sermon which received prolonged applause from the bishops at Canterbury Cathedral. "It is an inclusive communion where there is space equally for everyone and anyone regardless,"

That's where I stand any way!

The GAFCON Con

I have been slow to comment on the so called "Global Anglican Future's Conference" (GAFCON), as Anglicans Online observed last week, one may just as well let the dust settle until we can really see what has happened.
Perhaps the most trenchant criticisms are those which suggest that a group met which (allegedly) represented an enormous number of the poorest Anglican Christians, and made no comment about poverty issues, and the health crisis on the African continent. Indeed a number of commentators have suggested that despite the continued insistence that it is the AfricanChurches whose noses are most put of joint by all this, the sort of realignment that GAFCON is promoting will actually serve the interests of rich disaffected Anglicans in North America, Australia and the UK.
Twas ever so
Some interesting reflections here
What is the Bishop of Rochester up to?
What is the Archbishop of Sydney up to?
What is the Archbishop of Canterbury up to?

Quacking like a duck

Some will be interested that two priests of the Church of England (in England) went through a blessing of their civil union at one of the great London churches (here) last weekend.
The event is, of course, worth reporting; though I am also interested in the reporting of the event.
The clever Rector who performed the service seemed well on top of the histrionics of various reporters who were trying to get him to say he was confronting the Archbishop of Canterbury, he was doing something naughty, or that this was actually a wedding.
He was very careful to say he was doing none of these things; a little too careful maybe.
Reporters didn't actually seem much interested in the morality of the event, but more in the scandal with which it might be associated. This caused the good Rector (not so good in some people's eyes) to declare..."Why has this all of a sudden become about me?"
Perhaps he thought it was the issue that was important. A bit naive really

Christian and Anglican and Catholic and Traditional and ......

I am happy to use all the above nomenclature to describe myself, though some would have thoughts on whether I fit some, any or all of these descriptive categories.
But that's by the way.
I had an interesting conversation yesterday with John Hepworth, former Roman Catholic priest, former Anglican priest and now the 'Archbishop' of the so-called 'Traditional Anglican Communion'(here).
We were both emptying our mail boxes at Blackwood Post Office! Hepworth actually lives within the geographical bounds of my parish, and has a small conventicle which ironically (but perhaps prophetically) used to be a Congregational Church!
The church now styled, strangely, St Etheldreda in the Hills reflects, I suspect, Hepworth's fascination with the quaint ways of Anglicanism. It has a sign outside which indeed says "Traditional Anglican Communion"; a euphemism for one of the groups of breakaway churches of the last three decades. My question is how can a church which has broken away from its roots describe itself as 'traditional', how can a church which is clearly not in communion with the See of Canterbury describe itself as 'Anglican' (No! Hepworth did not get an invitation to Lambeth); and which actually defines itself by removing itself from the 'Communion' be so described.(I have railed about this before..here)
On a pragmatic level I constantly get asked what St E's is all about, and have to tell folk that it's nothing to do with me...I tell them to go and have a look and suspect that most traditional Anglicans of my ilk would find little that would sit comfortably with their sense of being Anglican at all. They are of course anti-women's ordination. They seem to be opposed to modern language liturgy. And they like to dress-up!
Hepworth (strangely, given his origins) aggressively seems to court the Roman Catholic Church...and what he styles "the now famous letter" to the Holy See to seek some sort of recognition for his mob from the Roman Catholic Church is apparently the substance of active consideration in and around, before or after the Lambeth Conference.
I have no way of knowing how seriously the Roman Communion takes that letter, or how concerned they might be about taking Hepworth(and others) back into their bosom
In his inimitable way he talks of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Pope as 'Rowan' and 'Benedict' respectively, as though the three of them are equals.
Which I imagine in his mind they might be!